- From: <rektide@voodoowarez.com>
- Date: Thu, 4 Dec 2014 14:32:47 -0500
- To: James M Snell <jasnell@gmail.com>
- Cc: "public-socialweb@w3.org" <public-socialweb@w3.org>
At what doing to d we return to the Social IG and ask for this to get added to scope, or does this work remain outside of the Recommendation Track deliverables? http://www.w3.org/2013/socialweb/social-wg-charter#scope On Thu, Dec 04, 2014 at 10:33:57AM -0800, James M Snell wrote: > I've been continuing work on the proposed extended vocabulary... see here: > > [1] https://www.w3.org/wiki/Activity_Streams/Expanded_Vocabulary > [2] http://rawgit.com/jasnell/w3c-socialwg-activitystreams/extended-vocabulary/activitystreams2.html > [3] http://rawgit.com/jasnell/w3c-socialwg-activitystreams/extended-vocabulary/activitystreams2-vocabulary.html > > The main thing you'll notice about this is that it's a *big* expansion > of the vocabulary. The approach has been straightforward: dig through > a ton of existing social web applications/platforms and identify the > common artifacts, features, etc and if any particular item shows up in > at least three separate implementations, it's added to the extended > vocabulary. The goal here is to make it trivially possible to > represent the most common social artifacts/actions without requiring a > dependency on any one "External" vocabulary. > > Overlaps with other vocabularies (particularly schema.org/Actions) > exist in this. Those overlaps are *intentional*. If folks want to use > schema.org instead, go for it, there's nothing stopping you. Linked > data mechanisms can be used to connect those together so that > everything just works. Thanks for colliding across namespaces. I really hope something gets better with Schema.org / w3 's ability to work together soon.
Received on Thursday, 4 December 2014 19:33:12 UTC