RDF spec plus non-RDF spec
Right now we are RDF centric (which is fine) in the actual spec, while noting that we will support any format needed. The all_VF.ttl file is our "system of record" and the only machine-readable spec we have. We are also discussing it not being good practice to include other vocabulary terms inside our vocabulary (skos:note, but also foaf:Agent, etc.). See https://github.com/valueflows/valueflows/issues/423 and https://github.com/valueflows/valueflows/pull/424 and https://github.com/valueflows/valueflows/pull/415.
But, also we want to support non-rdf implementations (and are doing a couple of them now). Even many of the ActivityPub developers want to use just plain json.
- We keep our machine-readable ttl spec with its generated human-readable spec as it is (and we can eliminate all other vocab elements).
- We add a parallel spec that is also machine-readable, and has the same content but includes the elements we want to have that are already represented in other rdf vocabularies. One idea: json-schemas. I think that is what we have in holochain (can check); and that is what ssb uses.