Re: Shapes Repository

Hi Jesse and all,

Thank you for sharing this initiative. Improving interoperability in the
Solid ecosystem is clearly important, and the goals you've outlined are
worthwhile. However, before engaging with the new repository, I think
the community deserves answers to some process questions that this
announcement raises.

As documented in `solid/specification` meeting notes from March 2023,
the original `solid/shapes` repository (currently at
`solid-contrib/shapes`) was created through Solid CG consensus (
https://github.com/solid/specification/blob/main/meetings/2023-03-15.md#shapes-repository
). That repository has since been transferred out of the `solid`
organisation into `solid-contrib` and archived, apparently without CG
consensus, without redirects in place, and while the repository was
still actively in use. This is documented in issue
https://github.com/solid-contrib/shapes/issues/5 which remains open and
unresolved.

The email we've received now announces a new repository (`solid/shapes`)
described as a fresh start, pre-filled with shapes from SolidOS and
elsewhere. But it does not acknowledge or explain what happened to the
original community effort, why the prior repository was moved and
archived without CG agreement, or how contributors to the original work
are being recognised.

Before the community is asked to invest further effort, I'd appreciate
clarity on the following:

1. Why was solid-contrib/shapes transferred and archived without CG
consensus, given that it was created through that process?
2. What is the resolution for the broken references caused by that
transfer, for which there are currently no redirects?
3. What is the rationale for discarding the existing repository rather
than building on it?
4. What assurances does the community have that governance of this new
repository rests with the Solid CG, rather than with ODI or any other
single organisation?

I raise these not to be obstructive, but because the community's
willingness to contribute depends on trust in the governance process.
Starting fresh while an open issue about the mishandling of the prior
repository remains unaddressed does not inspire that confidence.

I would welcome a response here on the list, and would also encourage
Jesse and Matthieu to address issue #5 directly on GitHub.

Best regards,
Virginia

On 3/31/26 12:04, Jesse Wright wrote:
>
> Dear Solid Community,
>
> We would like to share a new repository
> - https://github.com/solid/shapes <https://github.com/solid/shapes> -
> aimed at supporting interoperability in the Solid ecosystem.
>
> We’d really welcome your feedback on this and the role it could play
> for the community!
>
> Primarily, this repository is designed to:
>
> 1.
>
>     Provide a space for the community to converge on the data models
>     used across applications – declared using SHACL shapes
>
> 2.
>
>     Build up a collection of well-understood, reusable shape patterns
>
> 3.
>
>     Enable a collaborative review process where shapes can be compared
>     and discussed transparently
>
> 4.
>
>     Support artefact generation from shapes, including object
>     abstractions in Javascript <https://github.com/rdfjs/wrapper>,
>     data validators (using SHACL engines), and forms
>     <https://w3c.github.io/data-shapes/shacl12-ui/>.
>
> 5.
>
>     Offer visibility into existing shapes to encourage reuse, reduce
>     duplication, contributor recognition, and help new participants
>     get started more easily
>
> We have documented an initial contribution process in the repository.
> In addition, there is an important human consensus step
> <https://github.com/solid/shapes/blob/main/CONTRIBUTING.md> that we
> are still refining and would welcome feedback on
> <https://github.com/solid/shapes/issues/24>.
>
> We have pre-filled this repository with shapes that we know are
> already used within the ecosystem – including shapes based on the data
> models used by SolidOS. We would now like to invite you to contribute
> shapes, representing the data that your Solid applications read and
> write - please refer to the guidelines on contributing
> <https://github.com/solid/shapes/blob/main/CONTRIBUTING.md>.
>
> Note: The goal of this repository is to achieve interoperability
> through social consensus rather than technical complexity, such as
> inference or mappings. As the Solid ecosystem scales beyond its
> current size, we may eventually deprecate this repository in favor of
> other mechanisms. We also expect that this repository will, in time,
> evolve beyond the use of SHACL alone – ways we imagine this could
> happen include:
>
>  *
>
>     Ontology-Driven Approach
>     <https://github.com/solid/shapes/issues/32>: Moving toward a set
>     of recommended ontologies based on actual usage. Shapes would
>     still document how applications read/write data, with automated
>     checks to ensure they conform to these recommended ontologies.
>
>  *
>
>     Consistency Checks <https://github.com/solid/shapes/issues/33>:
>     Ensuring the consistency of recommended ontologies (though this
>     may be too academic for practical implementation).
>
>  *
>
>     Foundational Ontology <https://github.com/solid/shapes/issues/34>:
>     Introducing a foundational ontology (e.g., UFO) that all other
>     ontologies build upon (similarly, this may be too academic for our
>     current needs).
>
> These are subject to change based on feedback from the repository’s
> usage and other interoperability efforts.
>
> If you have comments, we’d like to gather initial feedback
> asynchronously via GitHub discussions
> <https://github.com/solid/shapes/discussions>. If there’s interest in
> a deeper discussion, we can schedule a call or bring this to the
> Community Group agenda. 
>
> Design decisions have been itemised on GitHub
> <https://github.com/solid/shapes/issues?q=is%3Aissue%20label%3Adesign> and
> we would encourage you to comment on individual design decisions there
> rather than via the email thread.
>
> Looking forward to your thoughts!
>
> Best,
> -- 
> *Jesse Wright (he/him)*
> *Project Lead, Solid
> <https://theodi.org/news-and-events/news/odi-and-solid-come-together-to-give-individuals-greater-control-over-personal-data/>
> *
> The Open Data Institute
> 4th Floor, Kings Place, 90 York Way, London, N1 9AG
> Website: theodi.org <https://theodi.org/>
> Book a meeting: https://calendar.app.google/hv63aFQyL6jgjiXG9
> Tel: +44 7862381515
> /My work day may look different than yours. Please do not feel
> obligated to respond outside of your normal working hours./

Received on Tuesday, 31 March 2026 10:26:14 UTC