Skip to content
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

Separation of index content #43

Merged
merged 3 commits into from
Sep 1, 2022
Merged

Separation of index content #43

merged 3 commits into from
Sep 1, 2022

Conversation

timea-solid
Copy link
Member

@timea-solid timea-solid commented Aug 21, 2022

As discussed in out team meeting ( https://github.com/solid/webid-profile/blob/main/meetings/2022-08-23.md#separation-of-index-content ) and prompted by the #35 issue, this is a start to separate indexes.

@timea-solid timea-solid changed the title Separation of indexe content Separation of index content Aug 21, 2022
Copy link
Member

@jeff-zucker jeff-zucker left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Removing the Type Index Section and the TOC to it looks good. Please do NOT remove references to the Type Indexes in other sections (as you do in the storage section). We need to have a discussion about how this spec will refer to the type index spec but if I'm understanding correctly, @RubenVerborgh seems to agree with me that we should discuss discovery of type index docs and very generally why we would want to use them in this spec and point to the other spec for all details.

Copy link

@RubenVerborgh RubenVerborgh left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I think this is almost good to go.

So @jeff-zucker and I slightly differ:

@RubenVerborgh seems to agree with me that we should discuss discovery of type index docs

There should indeed be a description somewhere on how to discover type indexes.

However, we might still want to discuss where that description will be written down. Essentially, the question is whether we want:

  • the Profile document to have a dependency on the Type Indexes document
  • the Type Indexes document to have a dependency on the Profile document

I think the second option is the more sustainable one; indexes will still evolve, but the profile should remain constant.

Furthermore, the publicTypeIndex and privateTypeIndex will be defined in the Type Index document; hence, it makes most sense that we also define there how to use them. So that means Type Index will point to Profile in any case; and circular dependencies are the last thing we want.

very generally why we would want to use them in this spec and point to the other spec for all details.

There might be a generic remark in the Profile document about how it can refer to indexes (in general). Then again, given that a Profile document can refer to anything, that might not be very meaningful.

However, I would refrain from making Profile point to a specific index implementation.

So in that sense, I disagree with:

Please do NOT remove references to the Type Indexes in other sections (as you do in the storage section).

index.html Show resolved Hide resolved
solidIndex/index.html Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
solidIndex/index.html Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
solidIndex/index.html Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
Copy link
Member

@jeff-zucker jeff-zucker left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

withdrawing previous objection to removing from storage section

@timea-solid
Copy link
Member Author

timea-solid commented Aug 31, 2022

A repository was set up here: https://github.com/solid/type-indexes and type index-related resources have been moved. This PR also needs to clean up the already moved resources.

@jeff-zucker jeff-zucker merged commit 4004df1 into main Sep 1, 2022
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

3 participants