- From: Evan Prodromou <evan@e14n.com>
- Date: Wed, 5 Nov 2014 08:11:51 -0500
- To: James M Snell <jasnell@gmail.com>
- Cc: Owen Shepherd <owen.shepherd@e43.eu>, "public-socialweb@w3.org" <public-socialweb@w3.org>
If we simply recommend using one of N vocabularies, we have no effective interoperability. We need to make some choices about this schema. Evan Prodromou > On Nov 5, 2014, at 00:16, James M Snell <jasnell@gmail.com> wrote: > > While I certainly agree that a vocabulary of this sort will be > necessary (let's call it the "Social Object Vocabulary" to > differentiate it from the "Activity Vocabulary"), this becomes a very > slippery path... if we're not careful, we'll just end up rehashing the > same ground covered by other efforts (vcard, foaf, schema.org, org > ontology, etc). As much as possible, we ought to be looking at these > existing vocabularies before attempting to hash out anything else. > > For instance, we simply don't need an as:Person when we already have > things like foaf:Agent, schema.org/Person, vcard:Individual, > prov:Agent, and likely many others. One thing that would likely help > is to start documenting the abstract generalized concepts then mapping > those to the existing vocabularies, we can then see where the gaps > exist. I've started working on that here: > > https://www.w3.org/wiki/Socialwg/Social_Vocabulary > > - James > >> On Tue, Nov 4, 2014 at 12:58 PM, Owen Shepherd <owen.shepherd@e43.eu> wrote: >> As I work on the proposed spec which I'll be submitting imminently as a >> basis for our social API, it occurs to me that we really ought to (A) work >> out our base types (as Evan brought up earlier this week), and (B) work our >> our classification system. >> >> I figure that we have three broad groups of Objects: >> >> "Actors" - people, robots, etc. The "users" of our social system, whether >> sentient or not. >> "Content objects" - notes, articles, videos, etc. These are "passive" >> objects - they can only be created and acted on by the previous >> >> With "Media" as a subclass for things like videos and audio, which share a >> common property set >> >> "Other" - Things like groups, which don't really fall into either of the two >> previous categories >> >> This gives us an ontology somewhat like this (where each indent level >> implies a subclass relationship) >> >> as:Object - Base type >> >> as:Actor? >> A "producer"/"consumer" in AS ontology >> >> as:Person - A human being >> Others for "bots"? >> >> as:<Something> (Content objects; This is kind of like what Tantek would call >> a post) >> Can have things like comments, list of people who like, etc >> >> as:Note - shortform text (e.g. a tweet) >> as:Article - longform text >> as:Media(Object?) - Various types of multimedia (all share common >> properties) >> >> as:Audio >> as:Video >> as:Image >> ... >> >> as:Location >> as:Collection >> ... >> >> as:Group >> >> This then gives us a basis for declaring common properties (e.g. a Person >> doesn't have comments, but all content objects do) >> >> Thoughts? >> >> Owen
Received on Wednesday, 5 November 2014 13:12:44 UTC