Re: story or not?

On 02/12/2015 05:55 PM, Erik Wilde wrote:
> hello elf.
Ahoy Erik o/

> 
> On 2015-02-12 4:44 , ☮ elf Pavlik ☮ wrote:
>>> I believe Activity Streams 1.0 at one stage allowed multiple verbs which
>>> addressed the issue below fairly simply but provided other complications
>>> (and so was removed). With json-ld types, the association is not held in
>>> the data itself so it's more complex to process. Definitely think
>>> this is
>>> an important story.
>> Please don't forget that you can use "@type": ["Like", "ex:Yay"] if you
>> don't want to depend on inferring it from ex:Yay rdfs:subClassOf as:Like
>> statement, which you don't need to use RDFS reasoner to do so but you
>> custom code understanding such basic statements.
> 
> i do understand that i can explicitly "cast" activities to possibly
> multiple types with constructs such as:
> 
> "@type": ["Like", "Floop", "Respond"]
> 
> but that to me (and to other people, i would assume) then looks as if i
> MUST do this explicit casting if i want the vocabulary's type hierarchy
> to be reliably represented in my activities.
> 
> i am fine doing this if AS2 tells me to do it. what i think is not so
> great is that if i *don't* do it and simply use a single type, then some
> consumers will still interpret this as meaning the above, and some
> don't.

http://www.w3.org/TR/2015/WD-activitystreams-core-20150129/#fig-an-object-that-is-both-a-place-and-a-gr-location

Would you like to create a pull request which adds such explicit *MUST*?

I see no problem with taking this path in AS2.0 spec and when reasoning
tools get more reasonable we will already have straight forward path to
drop this *MUST* in next one of next iterations.