solid
Consider stating the terms in definitions/terminology as SKOS Concepts
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?
Are you trying to understand why we should publish Linked Data documents under solidproject.org backed with a Solid server so that Solid applications can use that data in the Solid Project?
No, I believe I formulated my question rather clearly:
could you please provide a few real-world examples of how it proves benefiting based on experience with other specs which already do it?
I don't ask about hypothetical benefits. I see implementers and spec writers as the primary audience of solid specifications. If you have examples of them using SKOS annotations from other specs which include them, it is more likely that someone would get motivated to prioritize it in their planned contributions.