- From: James M Snell <jasnell@gmail.com>
- Date: Tue, 24 Mar 2015 11:57:15 -0700
- To: ☮ elf Pavlik ☮ <perpetual-tripper@wwelves.org>
- Cc: "public-socialweb@w3.org" <public-socialweb@w3.org>
These terms are *already* defined in our Vocabulary. The question is whether they should remain within the Vocabulary. This is the right venue for discussing such topics. On Tue, Mar 24, 2015 at 11:52 AM, ☮ elf Pavlik ☮ <perpetual-tripper@wwelves.org> wrote: > On 03/24/2015 07:44 PM, James M Snell wrote: >> The current version of the Activity Streams Vocabulary includes a few >> Activity types that, while present in many example existing social >> networking platforms, are not captured in any of our user stories. >> Should we keep those or should we remove them (Note that any >> implementation can add those back in as extension types) >> >> The candidates for removal are: Achieve, Claim, Reservation, Arrive, Travel >> >> Achieve: Would used primarily to indicate that actor has achieved the >> object. This is fairly specialized and can likely be safely removed >> without impact. >> >> Claim: Would be used to indicate that actor is claiming the object. >> This is fairly specialized and can likely be safely removed without >> impact. >> >> Reservation, Arrive and Travel deal largely with Geo-location use >> cases that are very broadly implemented but are currently not covered >> by our user stories. That's quite interesting in itself -- geolocation >> functions are ubiquitous to social platforms and yet none of our user >> stories seem to reflect that fact. Hmmmm..... > > I would prefer to focus in WG on providing a clear way to define domain > specific activity types and don't loose our energy on such vocasb terms > specific conversations here. > > Jason from xAPI already applied to join IG and we could work with their > real world requirements from > http://www.adlnet.gov/tla/experience-api/xapi-cop-directory/ >
Received on Tuesday, 24 March 2015 18:58:02 UTC