- From: Markus Lanthaler <markus.lanthaler@gmx.net>
- Date: Mon, 22 Sep 2014 11:48:53 +0200
- To: <public-socialweb@w3.org>
On 22 Sep 2014 at 00:34, James M Snell wrote: > Our proposal is to: > > A. Define a formal Activity and Actions Ontology based on [2]. > B. Define a requirement that all implementations MUST at least support > a JSON-LD serialization of this Ontology. > C. Model the Actions Ontology after the approach currently taken by > schema.org/Actions but without actually copying or using the > schema.org vocabulary. > > [1] http://jasnell.github.io/w3c-socialwg-activitystreams/activitystreams2.html#jsonld > [2] http://jasnell.github.io/w3c-socialwg-activitystreams/activitystreams2-vocabulary.html [...] > I'll be working this week to sketch up what the Activity Streams 2.0 > formal ontology would look like. In terms of the specs, it would mean > a greatly simplified core spec, a bit more added to the vocabulary > document, and the creation of an accompanying OWL Ontology that > describes the vocabulary. > > Anyway, that's our proposal. Feel free to throw flowers or eggs. What'cha think? +1 this would be my preferred way forward as well. As you stated, it has a lot of advantages and allows us to concentrate on the application domain (vocabulary) instead of having to worry about the syntax. -- Markus Lanthaler @markuslanthaler
Received on Monday, 22 September 2014 09:49:24 UTC