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

čt 22. 5. 2025 v 13:39 odesílatel Michiel de Jong <michiel@unhosted.org>
napsal:

> Yes sorry, I meant https://w3id.org.
> This is just about RDF terms (classes and predicates), for shapes you can
> use one of the existing shape repos as we discussed in
> https://forum.solidproject.org/t/solid-stm-about-shape-repo-s/8819.
>
> Besides https://w3id.org we could also use our own little system aimed at
> Solid app developers, with a submission form that asks for the term name
> and a short comment, asks the developer to authenticate with their WebID,
> and then publishes it with one click, for instance at
> https://ns.solidcommunity.net/ which I just created. But we want to give
> developers multiple tools. Opening a PR at
> https://github.com/solid/vocab/pulls will also still be an option but
> because that repo requires 3 reviews, it can take quite some time and
> effort to publish a term there. I recently went through the process of
> getting a few terms added to https://www.w3.org/2006/vcard/ns# and the
> process for that was back-and-forth emails with W3C staff (thanks for
> getting it sorted, Pierre-Antoine!), so that proves that using
> https://www.w3.org as a namespace host is also still an option for Solid
> app developers, but I wouldn't recommend it.
>
> We just want to create more options and less friction! :)
>

It says “requires 3 reviews”, but it’s unclear who the reviewers are.

If they’re fixed, could we list them somewhere more visible?

Without that, developers can end up in limbo, sometimes for months or even
years.

Thanks again for helping reduce friction in the Solid devX—it’s much
appreciated and much needed!


>
> Cheers,
> Michiel
>
> On Thu, 22 May 2025 at 13:07, Rui Zhao <rui.zhao@cs.ox.ac.uk> wrote:
>
>> Sorry I didn't make it yesterday due to a clashing overrun meeting. The
>> consensus seems very reasonable. Hope to read the more structured version
>> of it (like what others have mentioned). I also have the following specific
>> comment.
>>
>>
>> On 5/22/25 08:06, Michiel de Jong wrote:
>>
>>
>> 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.
>>
>>
>> Do you mean to use webid.org (guess you meant w3id.org?) (or alike
>> services) as the URL (domain part) for the new terms/vocabulary/ontology?
>>
>> Probably useful to see some clarification:
>>
>> What should be placed at the URL when accessing it?
>>
>> Should there be an ontology / OWL file, RDFS specification, SHACL shape,
>> or an HTML document?
>>
>> If an HTML document *and* a specification are both required (or heavily
>> suggested), are there any suggested hosting services that supports this?
>>
>>
>> E.g. W3C's PROV-O supports *both* HTML and RDF specification at its
>> namespace https://www.w3.org/ns/prov#, differentiated by the Accept
>> header of the request.
>>
>> I'm aware Solid is able to convert between different RDF serializations
>> with the same method, but HTML is a different thing.
>>
>> Best,
>>
>> Rui
>>
>