Digital Easements · Namespace & Ontology Reference
Digital Easements organizes the ontology, controlled vocabulary, and namespace declarations underneath LJP Asset Group's published reference packages — a single map of how the terms, identifiers, and citations across those packages relate to one another.
Why it matters: a portfolio of independently published technical references is easier to evaluate, cite, and cross-check when the underlying identifiers and relationships are declared in one place, in a standard, machine-readable form.
Digital Easements publishes the ontology (SKOS-based controlled vocabulary), the namespace declarations, and the provenance record that sit beneath LJP's published packages. It exists so a reader — or an automated system — can look up how a term used on one package relates to a term used on another, and where each one is documented.
A public ontology (Turtle / SKOS), namespace and concept identifiers, provenance metadata (PROV-O), and the citation set behind each published term — organized as a reference, not a product.
No live API, no runtime service, no data processing, and no operational dependency. Nothing here needs to be integrated, called, or kept running for the reference to be useful.
The four packages below are the first published under this standard — independently published, cited, and maintained, with more in development. Digital Easements records how their namespaces relate — it does not govern, host, or control the packages themselves.
Additional packages are in development and will be added to this root as they publish.
Why a namespace root
Every namespace under this root is held to the same standard. These are the reasons that standard exists — stated plainly, including what it does not claim.
Every namespace is checked against its source before it is published — a 3GPP technical report, an ITU-R recommendation, an FCC docket, a FinOps or W3C specification. Where a term is genuinely standards-anchored, we cite the exact document. Where it isn't, we say so.
An acquisition includes the work behind the name — identifying, cross-checking, and organizing technical vocabulary across standards bodies, regulatory filings, and industry frameworks — not simply the registration.
Some vocabularies are still settling — the terms exist in active standards work, ahead of where market language has locked. That timing is the opportunity: a namespace acquired early in that window, not a guarantee of where the term ends up.
An independently held namespace can support standards discussions, ecosystem initiatives, or procurement conversations without appearing to advertise any single vendor's product — because LJP is not a competing vendor.
Unlike a marketing budget, an acquired namespace remains something you hold — developed, licensed, or transferred on your own timeline. Its value isn't in broad consumer demand; it's concentrated among the handful of companies actually competing in this specific category, which is exactly the audience that matters for a reference like this.
A public, neutral definition page can give engineering, legal, and procurement teams a common external reference — useful when a project benefits from pointing multiple stakeholders to the same source.
Each namespace comes with organized, cited references that can shorten the early research phase of a new initiative — a faster starting point, not a substitute for your own work.
Each namespace is offered to a single company. Once acquired, it is removed from the LJP portfolio — no auction, and no second party holding the same name after the transaction closes.
Acquisition requires no integration, no infrastructure change, and no operational dependency. The primary cost is the purchase itself.
What a namespace becomes worth tracks how its technology or standard develops. The cost of holding that option is low, and the risk of holding it is close to zero — an inexpensive way to stay positioned as a category takes shape.
Every published namespace is written first for a human reader, and structured underneath with schema.org markup, JSON-LD, and cited sources that let automated systems parse it accurately. A meaningful and growing share of how people find technical information now runs through AI assistants and answer engines, not just typed keyword search — one reason each namespace uses a specific, descriptive name rather than a short brandable one: precise, natural-language phrasing is what both a careful reader and a retrieval system actually match against.
Reference artifacts only — nothing below is a live service, and nothing requires calling, authenticating against, or integrating with this domain.
| File | Format | Contains |
|---|---|---|
| /ontology/v1/ontology.ttl | W3C Turtle · SKOS | The controlled vocabulary: concepts, labels, and relationships (broader/narrower, related) across published packages, with PROV-O provenance. |
| /ontology/v1/namespace.json | JSON | Namespace declarations and identifiers for each package and capability under this root. |
| ontology.jsonld | JSON-LD | Portable, concept-scoped citation graph — the primary sources behind each term. |
| llms.txt | Plain text | A structured summary for language-model ingestion, kept aligned with the published citations. |
What this is: an independent, LJP-maintained ontology and namespace reference describing publicly available technical and regulatory vocabulary.
What this is not: LJP Asset Group is not affiliated with, endorsed by, or representing 3GPP, ETSI, ITU, the FCC, W3C, the FinOps Foundation, or any other standards or regulatory body named on this site or its linked packages. Standards references describe conceptual context only.
Where a specific package includes a genuinely ratified standard, we say so and name it. Where no ratified standard exists for a given term, we say that too — the same discipline that governs our citations governs everything on this page.
Each package is offered to a single company. Evaluation starts with a short conversation — no obligation, and no integration required to review it.
Start an evaluation →