RE: Social API: Scope

That's possible, but there's quite a bit in the RDFa core that's just not
relevant to, I suspect, most social implementations. The goal here would be
to find the minimal "you really ought to support these at least" subset
that's important for social. If that subset overlaps the RDFa core, then
fabulous.
On Jul 31, 2014 2:35 PM, "Owen Shepherd" <owen.shepherd@e43.eu> wrote:

>
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: James M Snell [mailto:jasnell@gmail.com]
> > Sent: 31 July 2014 18:32
> > To: Owen Shepherd
> > Cc: Goix Laurent Walter; public-socialweb@w3.org
> > Subject: Re: Social API: Scope
> >
> > FWIW, AS2 does not *re-base* itself on JSON-LD, it aligns with JSON-LD.
> > It's a critical difference. That said, however, it makes perfect sense to
> > leverage as much of the existing semantic vocabularies as we can. VCard,
> > FOAF, the Org Ontology... the current
> > AS2 draft lists a minimal set [1] that ought to work with or without
> JSON-
> > LD processing.
> >
> > [1] http://jasnell.github.io/w3c-socialwg-
> > activitystreams/activitystreams2.html#jsonld
> >
>
> [Owen] What are your thoughts about just deferring to the RDFa core
> initial context[1]? There is an expression of this in JSON-LD format, to
> which any canonical/recommended JSON-LD initial context can delegate [2]
>
> We might declare that things are to be represented in some "normalized
> form" (to assist non-LD processors); for example, where a prefix exists, it
> must be used, and all uses of the dc11/dcterms prefixes must be replaced
> with dc.
>
> [1] http://www.w3.org/2011/rdfa-context/rdfa-1.1
> [2] http://www.w3.org/2013/json-ld-context/rdfa11
>
>