RDF and non-RDF world views

>From the social WG, I think that James hits the nail on the head with his
description about *allowing* RDF processing while not *requiring* viewing
the world through RDF-tinted glasses.

There are clearly still challenges, such as whether punning properties
actually do allow RDF processing or not, but I think the point of view is
one that we should also try to adopt if possible.

Rob

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: James M Snell <jasnell@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, Nov 13, 2014 at 7:54 AM
Subject: Re: ActivityStreams Schema: Hierarchy of Types

Requiring an RDF world view would be a mistake. Use of JSON-LD does
not require us to take that view. It does, however, enable those who
want to take that view to do so. A minimal vocabulary based around the
most common use cases, defined within the
www.w3.org/ns/activitystreams namespace makes sense to enable a
minimal level of interop. If someone wants to bridge those definitions
into other vocabularies/systems, there's nothing stopping them from
doing so. That said, in order to define that minimal vocabulary, we
need a minimal set of basic use cases from which to build around. The
work that Erik has been doing looking at the AS1 base schema is a
great start.

On Wed, Nov 12, 2014 at 4:10 PM, ☮ elf Pavlik ☮
<perpetual-tripper@wwelves.org> wrote:
> On 11/13/2014 12:51 AM, Erik Wilde wrote:
>> hello elf.
>>
>> On 2014-11-13, 00:24, ☮ elf Pavlik ☮ wrote:
>>> I would say that we can base it on RDF data model so *those who chose
>>> to* can take full advantage of it. Still if someone *chooses to* ignore
>>> @context, then this implementation will treat the data as plain old
>>> JSON, which uses unmapped strings. Constructs like "@type": ["Person",
>>> "foaf:Person"] and similar don't force anyone to treat them as RDF.
>>
>> this is a very slippery slope and at the very least we should be open
>> and honest about how steep we are making that. for example, just in your
>> short snippet, "foaf:Person" already makes assumptions about the prefix
>> "foaf:" (what's the processing model to find out what that's supposed to
>> mean?), and thus you cannot simply treat that as a string.
[...]
-- 
Rob Sanderson
Technology Collaboration Facilitator
Digital Library Systems and Services
Stanford, CA 94305