🇺🇸United States @jgaehring

m.stenta → credited jgaehring → .

(eg: farmOS:soil-test:1.0)

That's perfect. But I have to ask: Are we just reinventing RDF?

;-P

I'd like to advocate for a relatively flat structure that indicates the three points of reference I mentioned in this long-ago issue over on the OpenTEAM Gitlab:

It should have the following identifiers:

1. The entity and bundle it constrains (eg, "log--input")
2. The convention name or id
3. The convention version number

The first identifier I think would be specified implicitly by the type of the asset or log itself, but I feel like it will be crucial to have both a unique namespace, eg log--input--usda_organic, as well as a semantic version number for the convention itself. So, when represented as JSON, something similar to what you see in a composer.json or package.json file:

{
  "type": "log--input",
  "convention": {
    "log--input--usda_organic": "^2.1.0"
  }
}

In other words, a flattened dependency graph, which is ultimately what I think these conventions represent.

Apart from that, I totally agree with @m.stenta that there doesn't need to be anything in the convention field itself that implements any form of validation or enforcement, but I think it will be critical that it can at least provide an identifier that can be used in the future to reference specific means of validating them that is consistent.