On Sat, Jan 24, 2015 at 09:56:40AM -0500, Eric Prudhommeaux wrote:
> I'm very happy you folks are doing our homework for us. One wrinkle to
> add, if I may, is that we probably need to include something that says
> it's about RDF vs. XML, JSON, data in general, etc. I'd be happy with
> DPL if we could reasonably claim that the world expresses its data in
> RDF. Since we're far from the lead, we may want something that
> an RDF user would recognize as being the technology that they need
> for RDF structural schemas,
> anyone else would recognize as being a technology for RDF, Semantic
> Web, Linked Data, etc.
> I expect I'm asking the impossible, but I thought I'd give it a try.
Hmm, but I had understood from Karen that saying it is about RDF would
be a problem:
Holger Knudson's presentation to the group explained his thinking,
which was that "LD" will appeal to the JSON-LD folks, and using
"Object" makes it sound familiar to those who do object-oriented
programming. I agree with his logic that "RDF" sends some folks flying
in the opposite direction - especially those who have tried to learn
about RDF directly from the W3C documents.
That is perhaps why 'Linked Data', and not 'RDF' (or 'Semantic Web'),
figures so strongly among the alternative names for the language listed
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'. Or, since 'Data' is used twice,
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
Tom Baker <[log in to unmask]>