Re: Getting the group back on track

Quoting Chris from earlier to retain the context:

On 2015-10-06 19:06, Christopher Allan Webber wrote:
> I think we can.  ActivityStreams 2.0 is already looking quite polished.
> Today we got some good clarity on what an ActivityStreams test suite
> would look like, and I can help on this.  But the deliverables of social
> api and federation api seem stuck in a rut.  At minimum, we need to
> agree on a format and move forward with it.
>
> Since it's already a deliverable, the mandatory format might as well be
> ActivityStreams + JSON.  It's okay to say in the specification that
> other formats are optional, and here's how to handle them, but
> ActivityStreams should be mandatory.  As Evan said on the call today, it
> would "look strange" to not have that be part of the official APIs the
> group puts forward.  But appearing non-strange is just one reason: the
> goal of this group should be putting forward a standard that the real
> world will probably use.  The real world is currently setting up
> endpoints that shoot JSON back and forth at each other.  Well, we've got
> a nice JSON supporting format, we should take that, declare that as a
> basis, and start defining how to shoot that across some endpoints.

I think this is pretty much already the case, and the Charter says so 
re: JSON.

On 2015-10-13 10:08, Christopher Allan Webber wrote:
> Evan Prodromou writes:
>
>> On 2015-10-12 10:28 AM, Melvin Carvalho wrote:
>>> I dont think taking yet another JSON serialization to REC is a good
>>> idea, when we already have a JSON REC (JSON LD) which is to all
>>> intents and purposes identical.  I am wondering if there will be some
>>> formal objection down the line.
>>
>> Have you reviewed AS 2.0? It's explicitly compatible with JSON-LD, as a
>> design goal. It's more or less a vocabulary on top of JSON-LD.
>
> Not only is it built on top of json-ld, if you go to
> http://json-ld.org/playground/ you'll see there's even an [Activity]
> button on there.  Hit the n-quads tab, you'll see that we can even
> convert to RDF.
>
> ActivityStreams is based on JSON-LD and is directly convertable to
> RDF... I think the AS direction and the linked data direction currently
> have a smooth integration path.

I think there may be some cross talk here. I don't think you are 
disagreeing with each other :)

As I understand AS2's Serialization Notes, while AS2 is described using 
JSON-LD, it doesn't (obviously) prohibit other serializations e.g., 
another JSON convention, HTML, or XYZ. If people want to do that, they 
can go for it. I don't think we are interested in or have the capacity 
to come up with an alternative JSON serialization, nor is it necessary 
to talk about any other RDF serialization; JSON-LD gives way to any RDF 
serialization out of the box.

If people want to use a JSON convention other than JSON-LD, they should 
make sure that the normative JSON-LD of AS2 can be achieved - this is 
where the AS2 JSON-LD @context comes in.

Aside: I think the JSON serialization of microformats can be JSON-LD 
with minimal adaptation, and will open up . Is there any work on this or 
a particular reason why it is not already the case?

-Sarven
http://csarven.ca/#i

Received on Tuesday, 13 October 2015 15:56:25 UTC