Specification: Define Solid vocabulary

[RubenVerborgh]

[csarven]

What do you mean by "add"?

http://www.w3.org/ns/solid/terms can be referred from "Namespaces". See https://github.com/solid/specification/pull/83 .

We can describe and exemplify some aspects of the vocab without defining anything.

[RubenVerborgh]

What do you mean by "add"?

Rephrased; I think we should introduce and explain the Solid terms in the spec.

[csarven]

I was reserving the term "defining" to http://www.w3.org/ns/solid/terms . The vocabulary can be described in its own document similar to https://www.w3.org/TR/annotation-vocab/ or https://www.w3.org/TR/activitystreams-vocabulary/ . It should not go into The Solid Ecosystem document.

[RubenVerborgh]

All fine, we just need to do it; hence this issue.

[csarven]

Sure, happy to work on this. We can publish that document in HTML(+RDFa) from http://www.w3.org/ns/solid/terms in addition to the current Turtle.

[pmcb55]

Just a question @csarven: I've been using Widoco (https://github.com/dgarijo/Widoco) to auto-generate really nicely formatted HTML documentation directly from the vocab RDF itself for vocabs I create myself. Are you familiar with that tool?
I don't know if Widoco generates RDFa within that HTML too, but it would be really cool if we could generate lovely documentation like https://www.w3.org/TR/annotation-vocab/ or https://www.w3.org/TR/activitystreams-vocabulary/ automatically from the RDF itself without doing any work at all...?

[csarven]

If source is authored in HTML+RDFa eg. same as the process that will be taken for https://github.com/solid/specification/issues/6 , other serializations can be generated. I think that is the most efficient and flexible way of doing it. But I understand that some have their heart on writing vocabs in Turtle :)