Re: Reconciling theory and in practice -- do the specs need updating?

On Mon, 6 Mar 2023 at 17:49, Johannes Ernst <johannes.ernst@gmail.com>
wrote:

> On Mar 6, 2023, at 07:55, Aaron Gray <aaronngray@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> As I say this is only a problem if you are programming on an instance
> level with hand coded code. If you work at a meta level then all you need
> is for clients to provide their @context properly and provide an @context
> on fingering or in /.well-known/ then this is not an issue for meta level
> systems. Most protocol extensions can be automated even at the UI end of
> the problem or prompt for meta-admin assistance to appropriate mappings.
>
>
> I’m not understanding what you mean by “meta level systems”. Do you mean
> software that can process any extension because it essentially extends its
> type system when it encounters new stuff? (e.g. by downloading new @context
> resources etc)
>

If so, then sure, but it only helps on the lower levels of the application
> stack, like with networking and storage. It does not help you towards
> creating a good, (consumer-grade, not geek-grade) UI, which almost
> certainly requires “hand coded” elements, otherwise all you get is the
> equivalent of property sheets. How should it know that extension should
> offer to take a photo, while the other should offer to insert GPS data — to
> pick some random examples?
>

Using an semantic stack with RDF and OWL, then JSON storage using
something like JSON fields in PostgeSQL, MongoDB, or other NoSQL DB. Then
using a meta forms approach to the UI it can all be done. For efficiency
the stack can be compiled down and lowered to instance code.

This is what I am working towards anyway.