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

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

From: Gregg Kellogg <gregg@kellogg-assoc.com>
Date: Thu, 28 Jul 2011 14:53:54 -0400
To: Kingsley Idehen <kidehen@openlinksw.com>
CC: "public-linked-json@w3.org" <public-linked-json@w3.org>
Message-ID: <1FB510F7-A4C8-4014-A77B-282CA7637D4B@kellogg-assoc.com>

On Jul 28, 2011, at 11:32 AM, Kingsley Idehen wrote:

> On 7/28/11 2:19 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. 
> 
> Yes, but what happens to the work by Gregg and Bradley re. requirements 
> [1] ?

I was going to update Requirements Linked Data to be more strict, as we discussed on Monday. I can also add a "Labeled and Directed" or "Linking Data" section that describes the superset. Then, update the JSON-LD requirements referencing both.

If anyone else would like to take this on, feel free!

> 
>> 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?
> 
> How about: JSON-LD where "LD" is for "Linked Data". Then take advantage 
> of this point from the requirements doc:
> An IRI that is a label in a linked data graph *SHOULD* be dereferencable 
> to a Linked Data document describing the labeled subject, object or 
> property.
> 
> It doesn't state *MUST* which is why I always assumed it deftly resolved 
> the Linked Data and Blank Nodes matter :-)
> 
> So we roll back to "LD" == Linked Data with Blank Nodes *accommodated*, 
> but confined to the special quarters in this particular house.
> 
> Now, hopefully pulling Glenn back into this discussion, we should really 
> focus the spec on the 80% issue of simple directed graph construction 
> using JSON. Spec use case examples can deal with N-arity and other 
> matters that are addressable via blank nodes. This spec should really 
> boil down to JSON representation for:
> <ObservationSubjectName> <SubjectCharacteristicName> 
> <SubjectCharacteristicValueInLiteralOrReferenceForm> .
> ...
> 
> 
> Links:
> 
> 1. http://json-ld.org/requirements/latest/ -- JSON-LD requirements.
> 
>> 
>> -- manu
>> 
> 
> 
> -- 
> 
> 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 18:55:02 UTC

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