- From: ☮ elf Pavlik ☮ <perpetual-tripper@wwelves.org>
- Date: Wed, 24 Sep 2014 09:12:46 +0200
- To: "Crawford, Mark" <mark.crawford@sap.com>, "public-social-interest@w3.org" <public-social-interest@w3.org>
- CC: "public-socialweb@w3.org" <public-socialweb@w3.org>
On 09/23/2014 07:57 PM, Crawford, Mark wrote: > Hi, Hi Mark, > > > > The Social WG has asked that we focus our work over the next several > weeks to developing and delivering to them one or more use cases around > social data syntax. I think this is a great opportunity for us to show > our value to the WG and also help alleviate an issue that would > otherwise disrupt their progress. I would suggest that Larry create a > new social data syntax sub wiki page to the Thank you for this announcement and I look forward to engage with others in Use Case TF! Sub page focusing on Social Syntax sounds like a good start. > https://www.w3.org/wiki/Socialig/Use_Case_TF wiki page where we can > begin to capture input. We will also need to decide how we want to > structure the use cases (simple narrative, formal expression, template > input), what additional information we want provided, and what if any > level of prioritization we want to have. As a first step, we need to > have a reasonable definition of what is meant by social data syntax. I > would ask that elf provide his first cut on a definition as a straw man > to the list. Once we have the forgoing, we can also reach out to all > members of the WG as well as through our individual social media > channels to gather input. To my understanding of current situation in WG, we currently don't agree on a single strategy for social syntax. I recommend starting with relevant wiki pages: * https://www.w3.org/wiki/Socialwg/Social_syntax_requirements * https://www.w3.org/wiki/Socialwg/Social_syntax As well as this email thread: * http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-socialweb/2014Sep/0028.html While many people including myself seem to support idea of leveraging RDF data model, already published JSON-LD spec[1] and just recommend appropriate vocabulary(ies). Couple of people currently object taking such approach. What I think we agree on - we need to represent *past activities* and *potential actions* (affordances). Good places to start looking at: * https://www.w3.org/wiki/Socialwg#Activity_Streams * http://schema.org/docs/actions.html * http://schema.org/Action Please let us know if we can clarify further anything till this point. I also believe other WG members will also reply with helpful feedback! Myself I started github repository to collect examples following schema.org design of Actions (which already leverages JSON-LD) and while doing it collect feedback to Web Schemas group on what we find missing there. * https://github.com/w3c-social/schema.org-examples * https://github.com/w3c-social/schema.org-examples/issues/1 (please note links to JSON-LD Playground) BTW If someone likes workflow currently made possible by github platform, I created dedicated organization there *w3c-social* I will happily add all interested members of Social IG to its owners! * https://github.com/w3c-social Cheers! [1] http://www.w3.org/TR/json-ld/
Received on Wednesday, 24 September 2014 07:15:13 UTC