Normalize cross-project terminology

[konobi]

Having explicit terminology is a great help, especially with enabling conceptual understanding.

Cross-project however, one projects idea of a "feed" may be similar but distinctly different than another projects. In hypercore there's a good pinning of what "feed" means in that context; in hyperdb we may refer to "feed", but this may underneath be a collection of feeds that are multiplexed into a single feed. Understanding the constraints and variations of the terminology between projects would help with a more top-to-bottom understanding of how the projects interrelate, where limitations are and what is extensible, etc.

[joehand]

We intended to write this up as a DEP but I struggled a bit with how to organize and go about this several months ago. Now that we have more DEPs under our belt and more examples, it may be easier to do this. But I'd be happy to hear more insight into what may be an easy way to share this info.

https://github.com/datprotocol/DEPs/pull/5

[yoshuawuyts]

@joehand we also started some work on that here: https://datprotocol.github.io/book/terminology.html -- I reckon it might perhaps make sense to make a rough draft of terms in the book, and then once we have some terms we're happy with we can lock down (a subset) in a DEP.