Re: ActivityStreams Schema: Hierarchy of Types

> ☮ elf Pavlik ☮ <mailto:perpetual-tripper@wwelves.org>
> 04 November 2014 21:15
> On 11/04/2014 09:58 PM, Owen Shepherd wrote:
>> As I work on the proposed spec which I'll be submitting imminently as a
>> basis for our social API, it occurs to me that we really ought to (A)
>> work out our base types (as Evan brought up earlier this week), and (B)
>> work our our classification system.
>>
>> I figure that we have three broad groups of Objects:
>>
>>    * "Actors" - people, robots, etc. The "users" of our social system,
>>      whether sentient or not.
>>    * "Content objects" - notes, articles, videos, etc. These are
>>      "passive" objects - they can only be created and acted on by the
>>      previous
>>        o With "Media" as a subclass for things like videos and audio,
>>          which share a common property set
>>    * "Other" - Things like groups, which don't really fall into either of
>>      the two previous categories
>>
> I like this distinction between active and passive types. I also see
> that Group/Organization could fit under Actor (active). For example
> Social WG can publish activity streams ( just like we already use
> https://twitter.com/SocialWebWG )
We need to distinguish "groups as organizations" and "groups as a 
discussion group". The SocialWG is a group in the former sense, whilst 
most social platforms use "group" in the latter sense, as did I in the 
above.

An Organization (perhaps termed as such?) should be an Actor, whilst a 
discussion group is not itself (its a place to do discussion, somewhat 
inanimate, but not itself content)
> If we look from perspective of permissions and access control, then
> groups and individuals have very different complexity.
Very.
>> This gives us an ontology somewhat like this (where each indent level
>> implies a subclass relationship)
>>
>>    * as:Object - Base type
>>        o as:Actor?
>>          A "producer"/"consumer" in AS ontology
>>            + as:Person - A human being
>>            + Others for "bots"?
>>        o as:<Something>  (Content objects; This is kind of like what
>>          Tantek would call a post)
>>          Can have things like comments, list of people who like, etc
>>            + as:Note - shortform text (e.g. a tweet)
>>            + as:Article - longform text
>>            + as:Media(Object?) - Various types of multimedia (all share
>>              common properties)
>>                # as:Audio
>>                # as:Video
>>                # as:Image
>>                # ...
>>            + as:Location
>>            + as:Collection
>>            + ...
>>        o as:Group
>>
>> This then gives us a basis for declaring common properties (e.g. a
>> Person doesn't have comments, but all content objects do)
>
> I will forward this email to Social IG and see if people in Vocabulary
> TF would like to overlay it with what already exists in Microformats2
> and Schema.org
>
> https://www.w3.org/wiki/Socialig/Vocabulary_TF
>
> Personally I will have urgent need for types like Event and RSVP!
> In next days I also will update my personal website to use (Dis)Like and
> Comment.
>

-- 
Sent using Postbox:
http://www.getpostbox.com