Re: Extended Vocabulary Status

On 12/04/2014 09:48 PM, James M Snell wrote:
> 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".

As author of the charter, the charter of the WG was for a "transfer
syntax". There may be components of a "core" in the Extended Vocabulary
draft. However, for the most part when chartering the IG was supposed
maintain larger vocabularies, as called out explicitly in their charter:

http://www.w3.org/2013/socialweb/social-ig-charter

 "Social Vocabularies: Various standards such as ActivityStreams and RDF
allow various items of shared interest, such as products and actions
("likes"), to be named with a URI for reasons of interoperability.
Vocabularies are sets of these related URIs around particular activities
(business processes, sharing, shopping). "


   cheers,
      harry



> 
> 
> 
> 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 Friday, 5 December 2014 08:59:03 UTC