Re: Orthogonality of format subspecs vs. feature subspecs

> How should we deal with this orthogonality? Should we eliminate it by forcing “feature” subspecs to extend one or more “format" subspecs? Should we support this orthogonality? What should be the language used by implementors in describing their implementations?

I’ve thought about this a little more and I think we should make the distinction explicit by having the superspec limit the scope of subspecs to either serialization formats _or_ features. In terms of language, an implementor would have to qualify their implementations as, for example, supporting WebID-TLS (feature) over WebID-Turtle (format) and WebID-JSONLD (format). Not the prettiest but quite clear, informative and allowing for the extendability that we’re after.

Thoughts?

Received on Friday, 8 December 2023 21:13:21 UTC