-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 19
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
Ecosystem - introduction and application registration #42
Conversation
|
||
<#set> | ||
a solid-ecosystem:registrySet ; | ||
solid-ecosystem:registryType solid-ecosystem:ApplicationRegistry ; |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I believe we'd want :ApplicationRegistry to be :applicationRegistry -- we seem to be inconsistent in the capitalization.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
ApplicationRegistry
seems to be an instance; they are usually capitalized.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Reading this made me wonder why they are not RDF types though.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
We had some debate on this -- landed on the case that (as of now) there is no difference between an application registry and a data registry, aside from the value of the :registryType predicate.
This :registryType is validated using the ShEx here to ensure a registry set for applications (ApplicationRegistry) does not have members of type DataRegistry.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Reading this made me wonder why they are not RDF types though.
RDF types would seem to make sense here. E.g.:
ecosystem:Registry a rdfs:Class .
ecosystem:ApplicationRegistry a ecosystem:Registry .
<#set> a ecosystem:ApplicationRegistry .
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Fully expect and welcome tons of feedback on the data model. We put more of a premium on getting something together and presented soon even if it wasn't pristine yet so that we can all iterate on it together. We're reusing most of these patterns so the faster we can nail them down the cleaner the next submissions will be 🙂
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Created this issue to continue this conversation. We're going to merge and iterate on this through subsequent pulls and issues.
First of what will be a multi-part submission for an interoperable client ecosystem. This pull request focuses on providing some introductory text, use case, definitions, environment, and an approach for application registration for further panel iteration.