- 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>
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