W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-linked-json@w3.org > July 2011

Re: Branding?

From: Dave Longley <dlongley@digitalbazaar.com>
Date: Thu, 28 Jul 2011 13:13:04 -0400
Message-ID: <4E3198A0.6000204@digitalbazaar.com>
To: public-linked-json@w3.org
On 07/28/2011 12:23 PM, Kingsley Idehen wrote:
> "LD" meaning Labeled and Directed, as I've stated earlier, works fine.

Sounds good to me.

>>
>>> It is supposed to be about JSON as a vehicle for constructing and 
>>> serializing Linked Data. I don't quite get the "practical markup to 
>>> support Linked Data in JSON" statement. Are other markups (including 
>>> those that are JSON based) for creating Linked Data impractical then?
>>
>> Here's what is impractical: Telling a JSON Web developer that some of 
>> their data won't work with a JSON-LD processor and some of it will -- 
>> when the only parts that won't work are unlabeled nodes.
>
>
> No, come on! Who said that?

I had a concern that people would call for this based on the direction 
the conversation seemed to be going, but this concern has now been 
alleviated. It sounds like your concerns about the name "JSON-LD" 
misleading people about Linked Data have also been alleviated. All is good.

>
>> They exist naturally in JSON and could be handled by the processor 
>> appropriately (as the current implementations do). It's impractical 
>> to coerce a Web developer to write a custom skolemization algorithm 
>> to create web-accessible URIs for types of data where it simply makes 
>> no sense to do so. 
>
> I don't think I've inferred that in anyway.

It seemed like you would prefer requiring Web developers to label purely 
structural nodes in their graphs (eg: playlist slots) or local data (eg: 
digital signatures). But it now seems that your position is instead in 
sync with mine, and you simply don't want "LD"  to stand for Linked 
Data. That's fine -- we can move on from here with "Labeled and Directed".

>
>>
>>> Why on earth do you deem anything view contrary to yours (or Manu's 
>>> for that matter) as "theoretical" or "impractical" ? Dare I ask 
>>> about your ownership of "pragmatism" and all things goal oriented 
>>> and achievable i.e., practical?
>>
>> This is hyperbole. 
>
> It isn't, read the threads i.e., rewind some. Even further, do it 
> across mailing list, we do have a Web after all. You veer to this kind 
> of name calling when there's disagreement.

I think you might have me confused with someone else. That being said, 
it is certainly within reason to suggest that there might be a time when 
someone suggests something on a mailing list that is less practical than 
an alternative. And, in that case, I might object to their suggestion on 
those grounds. But it is a gross mischaracterization to suggest that I 
call any view contrary to my own impractical. I'm sure that I've 
objected to all sorts of viewpoints by using a much wider variety of 
reasons. :)

> My only issue has been with "LD" meaning "Linked Data". I have no 
> problems with "LD" meaning "Labeled and Directed" or "LDG" meaning 
> "Labeled and Directed Graph". JSON-LD as a Name remains intact. The 
> meaning of "LD" is all that's changed. That works :-)

Works for me too. :)

-- 
Dave Longley
CTO
Digital Bazaar, Inc.
Received on Thursday, 28 July 2011 17:13:31 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 16:18:30 UTC