Re: Verbs

hello evan.

On 2014-11-01, 09:27, Evan Prodromou wrote:
> On 14-10-31 12:34 PM, James M Snell wrote:
>> We need to think about Verbs for a bit. (I apologize in advance for
>> the long-ish note)
>> At the face-to-face, the discussion was raised about whether it is
>> better to model Verbs as Nouns or as Predicates. The differences are
>> subtle, but important.
> The important question is how we indicate the verb of the activity.
> There seem to be three options:
>   * In the "@type", using a sub-type of "Activity"
>   * In an explicit "verb" property
>   * Implicitly via the name of the "object" property
> Of the three, I think the first makes the most sense.

most importantly for us, the question is what the processing model says 
about how to generally process and interpret AS data. what can you tell 
about an activity when you have no hard-coded knowledge of the 
"activity's type" (aka the verb)? i think there are important and 
fundamental differences between all those approaches, and the better we 
understand them (the best way would be to document them in the spec in 
the processing model), the better we can make an informed choice.

for example, using the third variant (the name of the object property) 
would be not so great, because then you would not even recognize the 
object of an activity anymore, which would mean you could not even say 
"actor X did something that i don't understand with object Y". that 
would take a lot away of what works just fine in AS1.

for me, one of the important litmus tests is to see what an intermediary 
can do, because that's where we want to put some of the smartness of an 
AS system. one example is an AS intermediary that is able to tell you 
about all activities that affect some object, without necessarily 
knowing what the activity type (the verb) is all about.



erik wilde |  -  tel:+1-510-2061079 |
            | UC Berkeley  -  School of Information (ISchool) |
            | |

Received on Saturday, 1 November 2014 17:29:39 UTC