Re: In Solid apps, let’s stop using RDF terms that 404

Dear all,

I could not attend yesterday's CG meeting but I want to put some 
attention to the difference between "just defining terms" and finding 
consensus on what these terms mean/refer to.
Please see my comment [1] on the corresponding issue.

Nothing wrong with just defining terms for quick prototyping! I did that 
myself as mentioned in [2].
But that is different from pushing terms into a vocabulary/ontology with 
a more official standing.

Cheers
Christoph

PS: Also see the CG meeting minutes [3] where I provided input for 
discussion.

[1] https://github.com/solid/vocab/issues/96#issuecomment-2812962755
[2] https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-solid/2025May/0008.html
[3] 
https://github.com/solid/specification/pull/732/files#diff-7cbc6daecf4e6d2e89fccb9c90142b8615f598c35f591665bc16712dd008c954

On 22/05/2025 09:06, Michiel de Jong wrote:
> In yesterday’s CG meeting we discussed how hard and slow it is to 
> publish RDF terms. While other semantic web practitioners may have a 
> different consideration of the trade-off, I proposed that we as the 
> Solid project should make sure that developers of Solid apps can 
> always publish a new term in at most 20 minutes.
>
> There are a few terms that we been using without proper dev docs for 
> months or even years. Let’s make sure we fix those one by one.
>
> For newly proposed terms let’s advise app devs and spec devs to 
> publish them at the same time they publish their app or spec, 
> using something like webId.org instead of leaving them undocumented 
> for months or years, stuck in unreviewed PRs or in unmaintained vocabs.
>
> Of course, apart from publishing their terms, app and spec devs should 
> also publish their shapes and other data conventions.
>
> Solid Data Modules, shape repos, inference and lenses can then help to 
> achieve interop.
> But without dev docs for our RDF terms we can’t even start to properly 
> work on those.
>
> We had a good discussion about this yesterday  with Pavlik, Jesse, 
> Melvin, myself, and other participants.
>
> The hope is that this proposed new recommendation will lead to a 
> better developer experience and better interop between apps.
>
> Is there anyone who couldn’t attend yesterday but would like to chime 
> in before we go ahead with this?
>
> Cheers,
> Michiel

Received on Thursday, 22 May 2025 07:24:03 UTC