- From: Harry Halpin <hhalpin@w3.org>
- Date: Fri, 05 Dec 2014 09:58:57 +0100
- To: James M Snell <jasnell@gmail.com>
- CC: Morgaine Fowle <rektide@voodoowarez.com>, "public-socialweb@w3.org" <public-socialweb@w3.org>
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