Consider stating the terms in definitions/terminology as SKOS Concepts
Nobody has claimed this yet.
- Dominant language
- Bikeshed
- Stars
- 26
- Forks
- 14
- PR merge metrics
- No merged PRs in 30d
Description
This issue extracts suggestions from @csarven originally in #118 and #134
If someone decides that it's worth their time, I would suggest looking into Bikeshed: Definitions data model and exploring the possibility of contributing SKOS output there.
Personally, I don't see a clear benefit for implementers and other spec writers from having it stated as SKOS Concepts. @csarven could you please provide a few real-world examples of how it proves benefiting based on experience with other specs which already do it?
Contributor guide
No contributing guide indexed for this repository
First steps
- Read the whole issue, then the project's contributing guide.
- Comment on the issue to say you are picking it up — it saves two people doing the same work.
- Fork the repository and make your change on a branch.
- Open a pull request that references the issue number.
Research direction
Start by reviewing the definitions/terminology in the specification and the linked Bikeshed Definitions data model. Look for real-world examples showing benefits of representing terms as SKOS Concepts. Done means establishing whether the change benefits implementers and spec writers and, if accepted, determining how SKOS output could be contributed.
Written by the indexing model from the issue text.
Assessment
- Domain
- documentation
- Issue type
- Feature
- Difficulty
- 5/5
- Estimated time
- Over a week
- Activity status
- Stale
- Clarity
- Needs clarification
- Newbie friendliness
- 20/100