Re: Social data /syntax/ vs Social data /vocabulary/

On 09/22/2014 12:40 AM, Harry Halpin wrote:
> 
> 
> On 09/21/2014 07:24 PM, Erik Wilde wrote:
>> what about:
> 
>> On 2014-09-21, 9:00, ☮ elf Pavlik ☮ wrote:
>>>>> Now, there is an open question of should we be defining a 
>>>>> /syntax/ or a /vocabulary*/?
> 
>> we need both.
> 
>> - a vocabulary is the set of concepts that are meaningful for the
>>  relevant domain. you can define a vocabulary in some existing 
>> metamodel framework, or do it ad hoc. both choices have good and 
>> bad side-effects.
> 
>> - a syntax is a representation that has well-defined rules how to
>>  serialize a vocabulary instance into the representation, and
>> how to parse a representation into the domain model. without a
>> syntax, you cannot have protocols or other ways of exchanging
>> data.
> 
>>> Could we try clarify this distinction between /syntax/ and 
>>> /vocabulary/ before tuesday call?
> 
>> is the above distinction clear enough? for AS1, it was pretty 
>> clear:
> 
>> - the vocabulary was in an ad hoc metamodel, and thus there was 
>> little baggage (but also little out-of-the-box support)
>> associated with it.
> 
>> - the syntaxes were JSON and Atom, and for both syntaxes it was 
>> defined how the vocabulary model maps to the syntax model.
> 
> Correct.
> 
> We are focussed on the syntax. This is going to be JSON (possibly 
> JSON-LD), plus whatever minimal metadata is needed to support
> activity streams (i.e. status updates and actions in a generic
> sense).
Can we also consider Online Presence?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Online_Presence_Ontology

> 
> Note that *generic vocabulary* discussion is out-of-scope for the 
> Social WG  supposed to happen in the Social Interest Group. For 
> example, vocabularies for "friends" and the like which are covered
> by numerous vocabularies (schema.org, XFN, vCard, PortableContacts,
> FOAF, etc.) can be sorted out there. Same with many other
> vocabularies, like expert-finding. There's a lot of Social
> Vocabularies and we should keep this WG focussed.
Good point Harry! Lloyd Fassett leading Social IG Vocabulary TF seems
super motivated. Let's move this non Activity/Action (Presence?)
related work to IG then.

> 
> http://www.w3.org/Social/IG/
> 
> I can see how one can call ActivityStreams 2.0 metadata and
> schema.org actions "vocabularies", and that's fine - but should
> constrain the vocabulary discussion to the minimal vocabulary
> necessary for status updates and actions.
+1 especially that we have a ton of work on API coming up so keeping
it JSON(-LD) and staying agnostic to the vocab of the actual payload
makes sense to me

Received on Monday, 22 September 2014 09:44:39 UTC