- From: Dave Longley <dlongley@digitalbazaar.com>
- Date: Thu, 28 Jul 2011 14:45:59 -0400
- To: public-linked-json@w3.org
On 07/28/2011 02:19 PM, Manu Sporny wrote: > -cc: public-lod@w3.org > > Sorry, I don't think we should be cross-posting this discussion. Feel > free to add it back in, but until we have an idea of what we're doing, > I don't think it's helpful to pull the larger community in. Especially > since they don't know what we're trying to do with JSON-*D. > > On 07/28/2011 01:21 PM, Danny Ayers wrote: >> "LD" meaning "Labeled and Directed" for JSON-LD works for me too. > > I have an issue with "Labeled and Directed" - try using it in a > conversation with a Web Developer that doesn't know about this area - > Linked Data, Semantic Web, etc. It will take quite a bit to explain to > them what "Labeled and Directed" means. > > Kingsley, Dave, Danny - what about: > > "JSON for Linking Data" - JSON-LD > > That way, the name itself is fairly self-explanatory and we don't > muddy the waters by using the "Linked Data" terminology in the spec's > name. We can have a definition of "Linked Data" in the spec, and tell > them that is the ideal we want to move towards, but that the "JSON for > Linking Data" allows them to express Linked Data as well as other > types of non-Linked data. Thoughts? > > -- manu > I would be fine with "JSON for Linking Data". -- Dave Longley CTO Digital Bazaar, Inc.
Received on Thursday, 28 July 2011 18:46:32 UTC