- From: Kingsley Idehen <kidehen@openlinksw.com>
- Date: Thu, 28 Jul 2011 00:25:41 -0400
- To: public-linked-json@w3.org
> On 07/27/2011 08:47 PM, Nathan wrote: >> Dave Longley wrote: >>> On 07/27/2011 01:48 PM, Kingsley Idehen wrote: >>>> All, >>>> >>>> How about: >>>> >>>> 1. JSON-*D -- in some form courtesy of Alex's post re. blank >>>> nodes accomodation >>>> >>>> 2. JSONG -- JSON Graphs (it does have rhythm to it) >>>> >>>> 3. JSON-XD -- "X" is whatever you want to make of it without >>>> breaking anything via conflation . >>>> >>>> >>> >>> I have thought about something that indicates "Graphs in JSON" >>> before, so if we must rename the spec then something along the lines >>> of JSONG would be alright with me. The only problem, in particular >>> with JSONG, is that it is difficult to differentiate it from JSON >>> when pronounced, if pronounced "JAY-SONG". >>> >> >> We do need to remember that it's only a particular kind of graph >> though, a labelled di-graph. Mentioning because there will be lots of >> other people passing over generic graphs in JSON for use with charts >> and diagrams, who may easily get confused if we go down the "graphs >> in JSON" route. >> >> Interestingly, Labelled Directed Graph also reduces to LD / LDG. > > That might be a good compromise. JSON, Labeled and Directed: JSON-LD. > And it's easy to remember that if you want to express Linked Data in > JSON, you use JSON-LD -- even if that isn't strictly the origin of its > name. > That's fine for sure! It certainly kills off the Linked Data confusion potential. It's also compatible with Linked Data being the end product of a *kind* of directed graph re. whole data representation. -- Regards, Kingsley Idehen President& CEO OpenLink Software Web: http://www.openlinksw.com Weblog: http://www.openlinksw.com/blog/~kidehen Twitter/Identi.ca: kidehen
Received on Thursday, 28 July 2011 04:26:16 UTC