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

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

From: Kingsley Idehen <kidehen@openlinksw.com>
Date: Thu, 28 Jul 2011 15:39:49 -0400
Message-ID: <4E31BB05.8000909@openlinksw.com>
To: Danny Ayers <danny.ayers@gmail.com>
CC: Dave Longley <dlongley@digitalbazaar.com>, public-linked-json@w3.org
On 7/28/11 3:28 PM, Danny Ayers wrote:
> On 28 July 2011 20:45, Dave Longley<dlongley@digitalbazaar.com>  wrote:
>> On 07/28/2011 02:19 PM, Manu Sporny wrote:
>>> 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.
> Ah, right, I can imagine. I guess that should be dropped.
>>> 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".
> Me too.

Me too re:

1. "JSON for Linking Data" or;
2. "LD" meaning "Linked Data" where we leverage the use of *SHOULD* re. 
de-referencavble IRIs to accommodate Blank Node edge cases.



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 19:40:14 UTC

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