With Hive Mind’s decision to pursue trust circles as the preferred user experience it begs the question of how best to structures the related atoms. The following is our idea:
[address] - trusted for - [topic]
address- self-explanatorytrusted for- I’m proposing to use the TextObject version of “trusted for” because it most succinctly conveys the relationship while being a unique enough phrase that is unlikely clash with other meanings
Term ID: 0xe55923557a4bc0ce15f91945eb2d4fca92e1a6fa8074378bcd8400eeb8b79176topic- again I propose using the TextObject version of the topic name “Sports” or “Crypto”, specifically capitalized to distinguish it from any other atom that happens to use that same word.
Topic Capitalization
I intend to give topic atoms distinction from other types of atoms because they will play such a pivotal role in the trust circle ecosystem (along with curators). For that reason I am proposing to use first-letter capitalization as the convention for a topic atom. So instead of “tech” it would be “Tech” or “sports” would become “Sports”… this matches convention of this atom representing the NAME of a topic.
Atom Type TextObject vs IPFS vs stringified JSON
I heavily favor TextObject type atoms because they force users to be much more concise, they often save on visual space on the front-end. Additionally, they encourage atom creators to choose unique strings as their identifiers (nested data structures breaks this expectation) which makes them easier to search for.
Topic Curator Self-Nomination
I have mentioned this elsewhere but I am also proposing to use [address] - trusted for - [topic] for individuals to declare themselves as a curator for that topic by staking on this triple for their own address. So if @smilingkylan wants to become a curator for “Sports” then he will stake on the following triple:
smilingkylan.eth - trusted for - Sports
Let me know your guys thoughts on this semantic structure for trust circles + curators