On Thursday, December 15, 2016, Nick Coghlan <ncoghlan@gmail.com> wrote:
On 16 December 2016 at 00:57, Wes Turner <wes.turner@gmail.com <javascript:;>> wrote:
This would be a graph. JSONLD? #PEP426JSONLD: - https://www.google.com/search?q=pep426jsonld - https://github.com/pypa/interoperability-peps/issues/31
With JSONLD, we could merge SoftwarePackage metadata with SoftwarePackageCollection metadata (just throwing some types out there).
Wes, JSON-LD is a metasystem used for descriptive analytics across mixed datasets, which *isn't a problem we have*. We have full authority over the data formats we care about, and the user needs that matter to distutils-sig are:
- publishers of Python packages - consumers of Python packages - maintainers of the toolchain
It would *absolutely* make sense for Semantic Web folks to get involved in the libraries.io project (either directly, or by building a separate service backed by the libraries.io data set) and seek to produce a global set of semantically linked data that spans not only dependencies within language ecosystems, but also dependencies between them. It *doesn't* make sense for every single language ecosystem to come up with its own unique spin on how to incorporate software packages into semantic web models, nor does it make sense to try to warp the Python packaging user experience to better meet the needs of taxonomists of knowledge.
This answer hasn't changed the last dozen times you've brought up JSON-LD. It isn't *going* to change. So please stop bringing it up.
No, the problem is the same; and solving it (joining user-specific package metadata with central repository metadata on a common URI) with web standards is the best approach.
Regards, Nick.
-- Nick Coghlan | ncoghlan@gmail.com <javascript:;> | Brisbane, Australia