Re: Hydra CG & LDP NEXT CG - interest in coordination telecon?

On 12 October 2015 at 10:54, elf Pavlik <perpetual-tripper@wwelves.org>
wrote:

> Hi Melvin,
>
> On 10/11/2015 11:18 PM, Melvin Carvalho wrote:
> > On 11 October 2015 at 14:13, elf Pavlik <perpetual-tripper@wwelves.org>
> > wrote:
> >
> >> Thanks Markus, I agree with all you comments!
> >>
> >> In Social Web WG I see need that we draw a clear distinction between
> >> vocabulary terms needed for describing particular data and vocabulary
> >> terms for describing API(s) for accessing this particular data over
> >> HTTP. I already see some IMO API specific terms creeping into AS2.0
> >> specs [1][2] and I believe that we better off with appreciating work
> >> already done in LDP and Hydra/LDF.
> >>
> >
> > Agree, nice work!
> >
> > Though I will add that at this point the WG deliverables are up to a year
> > behind schedule, and it's unclear what will be produced.  Progress has
> been
> > challenging with some members seeming not to understand the advantages of
> > awww or even name spaces at all.
> >
> > AS2.0 as a vocab seems to be a pretty decent piece of work, tho.  The
> > Social Interest Group (IG) has a vocabulary task force.  So I wonder if
> > this might become more prominent.  Comparing the different vocabs seems
> > valuable, and perhaps it would be possible to snapshot microformats and
> put
> > it in the w3c namespace as another vocab.
> >
> > A report on vocabs is an IG deliverable so perhaps this work could be
> taken
> > forward there.
>
> I would prefer to avoid discussing here any vocabularies related to
> describing logical relationships between data entities and stay focused
> on terms relevant to APIs.
>
> Besides LDP specs, Hydra draft and LDF drafts we also can take a look at
> * http://schema.org/docs/actions.html
> *
>
> http://jasnell.github.io/w3c-socialwg-activitystreams/actions/activitystreams2-actions.html
>
> Where for *me personally* Hydra & LDF, possibly aligned little more with
> LDP (eg. collection/container) for describing API *http operations*,
> combined with some way of defining them as HANDLERS for human oriented
> definitions of *online/offline interactions* (CheckIn, Join, Eat,
> Comment etc.) which Schema.org Action and AS2.0 Action Handlers try to
> address, would cover all the needs for an API which I can think of...
>
> To summarize, describing attributes of and relationships between all
> kind of online/offline entities - out of scope for me here. Describing
> attributes and relationships between *programmable interfaces for
> accessing (read/write) that information* - in scope.
>

Makes sense!  But there may be some overlap.


>
> Cheers!
>
>
>
> >
> >
> >>
> >> I start taking notes on commonalities and differences between LDP and
> >> Hydra on this wiki page:
> >>
> >>
> https://github.com/w3c-social/Social-APIs-Brainstorming/wiki/LDP,-Hydra,-LDF
> >>
> >> I put it there from the lack of other obvious place, everyone please
> >> feel warmly invited to contribute or propose different location for such
> >> comparison resource!
> >>
> >> Cheers :)
> >>
> >>
> >> [1] http://www.w3.org/TR/activitystreams-core/
> >> [2] http://www.w3.org/TR/activitystreams-vocabulary/
> >>
> >> On 10/08/2015 05:30 PM, Markus Lanthaler wrote:
> >>> On 8 Okt 2015 at 08:38, elf Pavlik wrote:
> >>>> On 10/07/2015 11:44 PM, Asbjørn Ulsberg wrote:
> >>>>>> If enough people expresses interest, I would happily help with
> >> arranging
> >>>>>> a telecon!
> >>>>>
> >>>>> I do think people are open to cross-WG collaboration, I'm just not
> >>>>> sure telecon is the most attractive way to do it. :-)
> >>>
> >>> +1, I think at this stage async communication will be more effective.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>> Makes sense! I just thought about an exceptional one just to take 1
> hour
> >>>> to understand better similarities and differences.
> >>>
> >>> I think the main question would be in what ways LDP Next will differ
> >> from the current version of LDP. What's up for discussion and what
> isn't.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>> 1) I will confirm if one can send emails to both groups, while
> >>>> officially having joined only one
> >>>
> >>> That should work fine.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>> 2) I would like to invite everyone who
> >>>> uses IRC to consider joining irc://irc.w3.org:6665/social (i don't
> see
> >>>> anyone using irc://irc.w3.org:6665/hydra) 3) I will document this
> topic
> >>>> better in this issue on github
> >>>> https://github.com/HydraCG/Specifications/issues/36
> >>>
> >>> Thanks. Please also keep the mailing list informed from time to time.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>> I agree that both communities may need more time to understand each
> >>>> others work. At the same time I find it very different to hear (or
> even
> >>>> see each other) during a telecon, even better meet IRL, comparing to
> >>>> just read messages - IMO it can potentially strengthen the C in CG :)
> >>>
> >>> :-)
> >>>
> >>> In my experience, spending an hour in a telecom or meeting isn't very
> >> efficient if it isn't properly prepared. So let's first do our homework
> on
> >> the mailing list before we commit time to communicate in realtime :-)
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> --
> >>> Markus Lanthaler
> >>> @markuslanthaler
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >
>
>