Ontology <> @Context File

[bumblefudge]

A question was raised on the list as to whether a definitive [RDF?] Ontology would be in scope of an AP-updating WG, however scoped (maintenance or non-constrained, AP-only or Social-Web-Wide). Similar points have been made on SocialHub by implementers not active here.

Personally, I feel like this would be a great idea, but as with any question of prioritization, committing to maintaining an ontology is a good bit of work and I hesitate to make it a blocking deliverable. Is there a way to make it a "stretch goal" or "potentially in-scope" deliverable at time of chartering? Would putting it in scope make it easier to find a grant or organization to "sponsor" the work, which I assume to be significant regardless of the format/toolchain chosen to do it in?

[cristianolongoodhl]

Ideally, this work should proceed "in parallel" with specification, so that the OWL modelling would provide a formal definition (where it is possible, considering the limitations and the scope of OWL) and validation of human-readable normative specifications.