- From: Dave Longley <dlongley@digitalbazaar.com>
- Date: Thu, 28 Jul 2011 03:00:35 -0400
- To: public-linked-json@w3.org
On 07/28/2011 12:25 AM, Kingsley Idehen wrote: >> 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. > Ok, sounds good! If others agree, then this probably means that we don't need to continue with our lengthy discussion. :) -- Dave Longley CTO Digital Bazaar, Inc.
Received on Thursday, 28 July 2011 07:01:00 UTC