Re: Activity Streams 1.0 basic schema verbs and object types supported by

On Mon, Nov 03, 2014 at 07:34:41PM +0000, James M Snell wrote:
> Can we please avoid comments like "everyone else on the web is going to
> be..." I do not presume to speak for everyone else on the web and I highly
> doubt anyone else on this list does either. There is a case that can be
> made for reusing the identifiers. Make the case and we'll see
> what consensus emerges. Just because a particular paved road exists doesn't
> mean it's the one we should take.

I agree in principle. And I'd be overjoyed to have some competitors in the
running- other vocab sets that are making inroads. I'm very much in favor of
experimentalism and comparing/contrasting, keeping options open.

If anyone else can show off perfect 1:1 mappings between the verbs Evan has
shown off and a vocab set, I know I would (and I suspect others would)
appreciate seeing those mappings.

In practice, Elf has already shown a near zero impedance path that
has already enacted to subsume much/all of the particulars from our Social neck
of the woods.

As for whether or not AS should define it's own vocab completely independently
of everything else, I cannot begin to imagine what kind of a case could be made
for that. I don't see it as upholding any value system or path at all- I frankly
don't know how to argue a case against nihilism.

Received on Monday, 3 November 2014 20:03:43 UTC