rhi

Appearance

Specs as software ​

Project(s) touched: software-taxonomy (primary); cross-resonance with concord (API bindings IR), paraphase (format conversion), rescribe (format adapters), ooxml

Status: Open — noted in software-taxonomy TODO.md; surfaced to the registry for its cross-project angle

Surfaced in: founding session b933d7e2 — software-taxonomy TODO.md "Open questions from the founding session"

The question ​

Is @spec: / @protocol: a software-taxonomy-only namespace, or does it deserve to be a shared ecosystem concept that concord, paraphase, and rescribe can reference?

Why this is a registry thread ​

concord, paraphase, rescribe, and ooxml all sit on spec-shaped artifacts and would benefit from a shared entity type. The decision determines whether those projects ever interop with software-taxonomy's knowledge graph — which is why it isn't purely a software-taxonomy TODO item.

What's still open ​

  • No decision on whether the namespace is shared or local.
  • If shared: the entity type and where it lives (software-taxonomy core vs. a neutral shared definition) are undefined.

Working answer ​

None — currently a software-taxonomy-local namespace by default.