Re: Definition of Collection and LDP Paging - was: definition of as:Collection and as:items very confused

On Fri, Apr 24, 2015 at 7:15 AM, henry.story@bblfish.net
<henry.story@bblfish.net> wrote:
>
> On 24 Apr 2015, at 14:59, James M Snell <jasnell@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> items being marked as functional in the non - normative turtle is purely
> accidental. Note that the normative text defined the actual definition. If
> there are corrections you'd suggest to the turtle definition so that it is a
> closer match to the text, PRs are helpful
>
> Well one fix that suggests itself is to remove the functional restriction
> from the Ontology that is added to the text, which you call non-normative,
> but which is likely the one to be read by machines who have a lot less
> interpretative skills than humans.
>

Yes, as I said, that's just a bug.

> In what I now know is the "normative" section of the spec it states under
> Collection ( http://www.w3.org/TR/activitystreams-vocabulary/#dfn-collection
> )
>
>> A Collection is a subclass of Object that represents ordered or unordered
>> sets of Object or Link instances. The model for collections within the
>> Activity Vocabulary is designed largely around the abstract model of
>> "logical feeds" and "pages" discussed in [RFC5005], Section 1.2.
>
> But since all of this is related to paging, why not rather work a bit more
> closely with what
> the LDP group has done under the leadership of Arnaud Le Hors who  works for
> the
> same company  you are working for ( IBM ) and that is available here:
>
>   https://dvcs.w3.org/hg/ldpwg/raw-file/default/ldp-paging.html
>

Note that paging in Activity Streams predates LDP Paging by several
years so it's really no surprise that there is overlap. I'm not aware
of a single AS implementation that does paging the LDP way so there's
not much experience to draw from. If you have specific suggestions on
how to achieve better alignment, please do illustrate with examples.

> This also references the same RFC5005 . It seems a bit of a waste of
> people's time here
> to have to go through the same work twice here for no clear reason.
>
> Furthermore Paging is very much a protocol related feature, which can be
> applied to pretty much all information retrieval, as it was shown in the LDP
> group. As a result adding paging to activity streams is not really the right
> place for it. It should be a generic feature of the spec.
>

Which spec exactly? I'm sorry but whatever point you're trying to make
here isn't very clear at all.

- James

> Henry
>
> .
>
> On Apr 24, 2015 1:28 AM, "henry.story@bblfish.net" <henry.story@bblfish.net>
> wrote:
>
> https://github.com/jasnell/w3c-socialwg-activitystreams/issues/104
>
>
>
>
>
>

Received on Friday, 24 April 2015 15:54:23 UTC