Interesting and useful, but I wonder how others feel about “The first task of any Solid project should be finding the schemas that you’ll use for your data. ShapeRepo includes a search bar to help you track down the shape that you want to use” ?
To me, having to choose a specific existing shape feels a lot like having to choose a file format, which defeats the purpose of being able to follow your nose?
In my view, step 1 is thinking what relationships you want to capture, step 2 is seeing if existing ontologies and shapes meet your need, and step 3 is avoiding compromising and instead doing your own thing if needed. Tools for reshaping data then just need to catch-up…?
I was wondering the same thing, and it looks like there are ShexJ and ShexC views available instead of the default table view:
this url throw me a 404
me too, and i think thats part of the problem, considering if you go here:
then it tells you the URI (but not URL / LinkedData) is “https://shaperepo.com/schemas/chat”
and on this page, it has a “Table View”, “ShexC View”, “ShexJ View”, but no dereferenceable and resolvable URLs.
It would be awesome that shaperepo worked like Github, where you can clone and modify shapes, growing organically… it sounds like a big task to manage all the shapes of the world .
Eventually, the most commonly used and accepted shapes could be put in a spotlight, to promote their use.