Re: Defining "LD" (was Re: Branding?)

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