Re: ActivityStreams Schema: Hierarchy of Types

On 11/04/2014 09:58 PM, Owen Shepherd wrote:
> As I work on the proposed spec which I'll be submitting imminently as a
> basis for our social API, it occurs to me that we really ought to (A)
> work out our base types (as Evan brought up earlier this week), and (B)
> work our our classification system.
> I figure that we have three broad groups of Objects:
>   * "Actors" - people, robots, etc. The "users" of our social system,
>     whether sentient or not.
>   * "Content objects" - notes, articles, videos, etc. These are
>     "passive" objects - they can only be created and acted on by the
>     previous
>       o With "Media" as a subclass for things like videos and audio,
>         which share a common property set
>   * "Other" - Things like groups, which don't really fall into either of
>     the two previous categories
I like this distinction between active and passive types. I also see
that Group/Organization could fit under Actor (active). For example
Social WG can publish activity streams ( just like we already use )

If we look from perspective of permissions and access control, then
groups and individuals have very different complexity.

> This gives us an ontology somewhat like this (where each indent level
> implies a subclass relationship)
>   * as:Object - Base type
>       o as:Actor?
>         A "producer"/"consumer" in AS ontology
>           + as:Person - A human being
>           + Others for "bots"?
>       o as:<Something> (Content objects; This is kind of like what
>         Tantek would call a post)
>         Can have things like comments, list of people who like, etc
>           + as:Note - shortform text (e.g. a tweet)
>           + as:Article - longform text
>           + as:Media(Object?) - Various types of multimedia (all share
>             common properties)
>               # as:Audio
>               # as:Video
>               # as:Image
>               # ...
>           + as:Location
>           + as:Collection
>           + ...
>       o as:Group
> This then gives us a basis for declaring common properties (e.g. a
> Person doesn't have comments, but all content objects do)

I will forward this email to Social IG and see if people in Vocabulary
TF would like to overlay it with what already exists in Microformats2

Personally I will have urgent need for types like Event and RSVP!
In next days I also will update my personal website to use (Dis)Like and

Received on Tuesday, 4 November 2014 21:17:40 UTC