Re: ActivityStreams Schema: Hierarchy of Types

Markus Lanthaler writes:

> On Wednesday, November 05, 2014 9:38 AM, Owen Shepherd wrote:
>> I’m in favour of us defining our own types for the core elements because
>> 
>> • Requiring people to remember that its’ foam:Person and
>> org:Organization and … will quickly get confusing. The core types we
>> need should be part of the specification, whether that be the AS2
>> specification or some “AS2 Base Schema”
>> 
>> Put simply, non JSON-LD processors shouldn’t need to know about card
>> or foaf or schema.org unless they specifically wish to do so (i.e.
>> they wish to take advantage of some features from there)
>
> Just to make this clear: If we define the JSON-LD context properly and
> decide on *a* vocabulary (instead of just recommending some) people
> neither need to remember a prefix nor need non-JSON-LD processors care
> about this.
>
> Let's first model the abstract concepts we need and then see whether
> there's enough overlap with an existing vocabulary to justify its use.

I think this is the best route.  A json-ld context can contain multiple
vocabulary sources, so there's no need to reinvent terms except where
needed.

I think James is on the right tack with working on:

https://www.w3.org/wiki/Socialwg/Social_Vocabulary

Maybe once an appropriate list is gathered here, one or more example
contexts can be put forward making available all terms, and we can then
discuss/vote?

Received on Wednesday, 12 November 2014 22:37:44 UTC