Eric Prud'hommeaux

I've imagined so far that `[Non]RDFResource` just says whether you enable parsing, validation and PATCH. If we take a libertarian view, the user is free to store e.g. {grammar,schema}-invalid Turtle...

Here's what I dug up: **describedby**: [RFC5988](https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc5988#section-6.2.2) turfs the definition of `describedBy` to [POWDER](https://www.w3.org/TR/powder-dr/#appD), which says: > The relationship A 'describedby' B asserts that resource B provides a description of...

> **One thing I'm not sure about is how this would work in the "Social Agent Shares Access"-flow, supposing that an end-user wishes to share a resource to the public...

I agree with not relying on OWL reasoning but I don't think that should discourage *describing* things with OWL. A good fraction of the OWL value proposition is for static...

I guess schemas, vocabularies, ShapeTrees, decorators, and lots of other documents, need a vocabulary for entities to identify their semver. Possibly combined with some convention for finding latest versions or...

I think that depends on how a client is supposed to request access to ressources ; does it need the link to initiate a "can this app do X" request?

I was just thinking about the mechanics of how the client finds out that there are resources that it can't access. There's a perennial tension between 401 and 403. Maybe...

If we want to make this change, it's probably less of a burden to do this sooner than later (less code will point to the scratch location). We'll probably want...

I accidentally made 137 link to this. I deleted that, but it still shows up as related above.

Related: https://github.com/solid/data-interoperability-panel/issues/33#issuecomment-573291108 I think these two constructs should have identical semantics: 1. Resource R's headers include `Link: rel="describedby" href="R.meta.ttl"` 2. R.meta's headers include `Link: rev="describedby" anchor="R"` [RFC5988]() asserts that `rev`...