Predicate proposal could become so repetitive and cluttered. Instead, we could group it based on “what data that we want to model instead”. We could even create each “interest group” for contributors that specifially want to add data about specific niche (tech, crypto, music, books, products, etc).
Take a look a this example. It makes myriad of predicates more easily navigable. It could also promotes collaboration between like-minded contributor who shared the same interests.
@rtnF Agree with you that the Predicates can get a bit cluttered and hard to find things. We have started to implement more tagging, which might work for interest areas.
A crypto tag for example, could be used to view all discussions (including proposals, updates, and general discussion) in that interest area.
Is this what you were imagining and/or do you think this would work?
I agree this would be useful so long as we allow the same Predicate to be reused by many such Schemes.
This seems akin to the idea of Shape as used in the W3C SHACL standard Shapes Constraint Language (SHACL). Though that was designed primarily for validation, a NodeShape is a collection of PropertyShapes (each of which references a predicate) and I’ve used SHACL definitions for user interface, query and documentation purposes. There is even an extension used for form design Form Generation using SHACL and DASH