- From: James M Snell <jasnell@gmail.com>
- Date: Mon, 19 Oct 2015 16:47:53 -0700
- To: Martynas Jusevičius <martynas@graphity.org>
- Cc: Melvin Carvalho <melvincarvalho@gmail.com>, public-socialweb@w3c.org
Doing so would not address the problem I describe.
On Mon, Oct 19, 2015 at 4:42 PM, Martynas Jusevičius
<martynas@graphity.org> wrote:
> Why not put some constraints on the data? And make them dereferenceable?
> There's a spec for that: https://w3c.github.io/data-shapes/shacl/
>
> On Tue, Oct 20, 2015 at 1:39 AM, James M Snell <jasnell@gmail.com> wrote:
>> By way of example: The following is a valid expanded form JSON-LD
>> document that uses the AS 2.0 vocabulary. It can be served using the
>> `application/ld+json` media type. It is NOT, however, a valid AS 2.0
>> document.
>>
>> ```
>> [
>> {
>> "@type": [
>> "http://www.w3.org/ns/activitystreams#Create"
>> ],
>> "http://www.w3.org/ns/activitystreams#actor": [
>> {
>> "@id": "acct:sally@example.org",
>> "@type": [
>> "http://www.w3.org/ns/activitystreams#Person"
>> ],
>> "http://www.w3.org/ns/activitystreams#displayName": [
>> {
>> "@value": "Sally"
>> }
>> ]
>> }
>> ],
>> "http://www.w3.org/ns/activitystreams#object": [
>> {
>> "@type": [
>> "http://www.w3.org/ns/activitystreams#Note"
>> ],
>> "http://www.w3.org/ns/activitystreams#content": [
>> {
>> "@value": "This is a simple note"
>> }
>> ]
>> }
>> ],
>> "http://www.w3.org/ns/activitystreams#published": [
>> {
>> "@type": "http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema#dateTime",
>> "@value": "2015-01-25T12:34:56Z"
>> }
>> ]
>> }
>> ]
>> ```
>>
>> The following is also a valid JSON-LD document that can be served
>> using the `application/ld+json` media type. It also uses the AS 2.0
>> vocabulary but it is also not a valid AS 2.0 document:
>>
>> ```
>> {
>> "@context": ["http://www.w3.org/ns/activitystreams", {
>> "foo": "as:displayName",
>> "bar": "as:content",
>> "baz": "@id",
>> "fuz": "@type"
>> }],
>> "@type": "Create",
>> "actor": {
>> "fuz": "Person",
>> "baz": "acct:sally@example.org",
>> "foo": "Sally"
>> },
>> "object": {
>> "fuz": "Note",
>> "bar": "This is a simple note"
>> },
>> "published": "2015-01-25T12:34:56Z"
>> }
>> ```
>>
>> In fact, both of the above examples are valid JSON-LD serializations
>> of exactly the same data, which you can only know if you apply the
>> JSON-LD processing APIs.
>>
>> A key part of the reason AS 2.0 requires a normative JSON-LD context
>> and compact serialization is to normalize the data format and make it
>> possible for implementers to choose not to apply full JSON-LD
>> processing and still be able to make reasonable sense of the data.
>>
>> - James
>>
>> On Mon, Oct 19, 2015 at 4:30 PM, Martynas Jusevičius
>> <martynas@graphity.org> wrote:
>>> I don't see any reason for a new media type. Media types identify file
>>> formats basically, which is orthogonal to what AS doing: creating yet
>>> another RDF vocabulary to describe social graphs and document
>>> hierarchies. If the serialization format is JSON-LD, then it can be
>>> interpreted as both RDF and JSON, which is a bonus. But in general,
>>> Linked Data applications should advertise which RDF serializations
>>> they support, instead of creating or extending media types. By
>>> extending the JSON media type, the interoperability would decrease.
>>>
>>> Martynas
>>>
>>> On Tue, Oct 20, 2015 at 12:58 AM, Melvin Carvalho
>>> <melvincarvalho@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On 19 October 2015 at 21:37, James M Snell <jasnell@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> We have had a number of open github issues. I recommend closing the
>>>>> following:
>>>>>
>>>>> #52 - "New media type or application/ld+json plus profile" -
>>>>> https://github.com/jasnell/w3c-socialwg-activitystreams/issues/52
>>>>>
>>>>> This one has been around for a while. There was a concern brought up
>>>>> about the creation of the application/activity+json media type and
>>>>> whether or not AS2 should use the application/ld+json media type with
>>>>> a profile parameter. The concern is that use of the
>>>>> application/activity+json media type could harm interoperability.
>>>>>
>>>>> In my opinion, the concern is largely theoretical and is not backed
>>>>> by real implementation experience. There is nothing to be gained by
>>>>> switching to using the application/ld+json media type. Nor is there
>>>>> anything "broken" about using the "application/activity+json".
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Thanks for bringing this up, James.
>>>>
>>>> Am I right to say that you would consider the two proposals of:
>>>>
>>>> 1 using the application/activity+json media type
>>>> 2 using the the application/ld+json media type plus profile mechanism [1]
>>>>
>>>> largely equivalent?
>>>>
>>>> Or do you strongly favor one option over the other? If so, I think it's
>>>> important to understand why
>>>>
>>>> [1] http://www.w3.org/TR/json-ld/#iana-considerations (see Optional
>>>> Parameters)
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> #157 - "Vocabulary item for "Blog" type" -
>>>>> https://github.com/jasnell/w3c-socialwg-activitystreams/issues/157
>>>>>
>>>>> In my opinion, this is unnecessary.
>>>>>
>>>>> #175 - "Should we have a type for the object of an "Offer" activity?
>>>>> " - https://github.com/jasnell/w3c-socialwg-activitystreams/issues/175
>>>>>
>>>>> In my opinion, this is unnecessary.
>>>>>
>>>>> #205 - "Object partOf Collection" -
>>>>> https://github.com/jasnell/w3c-socialwg-activitystreams/issues/205
>>>>>
>>>>> Question raised over whether we need a reverse property on objects
>>>>> to indicate which collection(s) they are members of. In my opinion
>>>>> this is unnecessary.
>>>>>
>>>>> #208 - "owl:Class vs. rdf:Property (for verbs and roles)" -
>>>>> https://github.com/jasnell/w3c-socialwg-activitystreams/issues/208
>>>>>
>>>>> Raises a concern over the fundamental design of verbs in AS2. This
>>>>> requests revisiting a design decision that was made early within the
>>>>> design of AS2 without presenting any new information. I see little
>>>>> value in rehashing the prior conversation and selected design.
>>>>>
>>>>> - James
>>>>>
>>>>
Received on Monday, 19 October 2015 23:48:41 UTC