NoelDeMartin
commented
2 months ago I still haven't settled on the final shape, but so far I'm using schema:Action. Mostly because I really like the schema.org docs, and most people are already familiar with that ontology. But I'm pretty sure I'll need to add additional fields from other ontologies, possibly even creating my own for very specific features (such as starred tasks, etc.).
As I said, though, I haven't made a final decision yet so if we converge on a different shape before I release the new version of the app I wouldn't mind using it. But maybe this is the hardest problem to tackle, because it seems like there are many approaches to project management in Solid/RDF. So it'll be interesting to see how the interoperability story evolves here.
The ontology I'm using in the current version of Solid Focus is lifecycle:Task, but I'm sure I'm not using it properly and I'll provide a migration tool for users. So I wouldn't take it into account for our considerations.
elf-pavlik
We have just discussed it during the weekly UX/DX meeting.
There is ongoing work on the data module for tasks
A focus app:
A SolidOS pane:
And a SAI demo of projects and tasks
This is enough to create a work item focused on project management.
As a first step, let's try to agree on a standard shape. Possibly starting with
Once we have a shape, it can be used in type indexes, SAI, etc. I would create a shape tree for that shape since SAI requires it. Others could also create other artifacts needed in their approaches.
Once we can demonstrate the same atomic resources displayed and edited by all four projects, we can further examine aligning authorization and discovery approaches.