On 1/25/15, 7:55 AM, Thomas Baker wrote:
> That is perhaps why 'Linked Data', and not 'RDF' (or 'Semantic Web'),
> figures so strongly among the alternative names for the language
> listed at [1]?
Yes, RDF may scare off some people who have looked at RDF in the past,
do not see enough evidence of the "Semantic Web" etc. We need to keep in
mind that RDF has accumulated a lot of baggage (with open world
semantics, OWL etc) that may or may not be helpful to broaden the user
community.
> If we were to lean towards 'pattern' over 'shape', and specifically
> towards Bernard's proposal for 'Data Pattern Language', and if, on the
> other hand, 'LD' appeals to the JSON-LD folks, how about: Data Pattern
> Language for Linked Data (DPL-LD) This says very clearly what the
> language is about, and the '-LD' part nicely echoes 'JSON-LD'.
I very much like the idea of "-LD" because I believe that the JSON
community might be one of the largest potential communities, and this
technology can serve as JSON Schema plus global identifiers plus an
explicit typing system (the last two things are lacking in traditional
JSON).
> Or, since 'Data' is used twice, maybe just: Pattern Language for
> Linked Data (PL-LD) ...which sounds refreshingly straightforward and
> non-threatening, jargon-wise. Of the two I slightly prefer 'DPL-LD',
> despite the redundancy of 'Data', if only because the acronym rolls
> better off the tongue.
I have added your suggestions to our current wiki page:
https://www.w3.org/2014/data-shapes/wiki/Technology_Name
I think the direction is good, but it might be better to have a vowel in
the name somewhere, so that it sounds better.
Holger
|