Re: Extended Vocabulary Status

Nor is there anything stopping the WG from including the extended
vocabulary as part of the rec track Activity Streams vocabulary..
which is how I've written it up. The general consensus on the last WG
call where this was discussed was that it was at least heading in the
right direction. The charter is ambiguous on this point, but I fail to
see how the extended vocabulary does not fall under the deliverable
for "A transfer syntax for social data such as activities (such as
status updates) should include at least the ability to describe the
data using URIs in an extensible manner".



On Thu, Dec 4, 2014 at 11:46 AM, Harry Halpin <hhalpin@w3.org> wrote:
>
>
> On 12/04/2014 08:32 PM, rektide@voodoowarez.com wrote:
>> 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
>
> It's not in the WG list of deliverables. That does not prevent the IG
> from publishing it as an "IG Note." However, James, could you provide a
> summary of the overlap with the scope of schema.org, since Google is
> also considering having that work as either a 'snapshot' or Member
> Submission?
>
>>
>> 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 20:48:50 UTC