Re: ActivityStreams Schema: Hierarchy of Types

While I definitely agree, let's please try to avoid overdoing it :)

On Wed, Nov 5, 2014, 5:12 AM Evan Prodromou <evan@e14n.com> wrote:

> If we simply recommend using one of N vocabularies, we have no effective
> interoperability.
>
> We need to make some choices about this schema.
>
> Evan Prodromou
>
> > On Nov 5, 2014, at 00:16, James M Snell <jasnell@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > While I certainly agree that a vocabulary of this sort will be
> > necessary (let's call it the "Social Object Vocabulary" to
> > differentiate it from the "Activity Vocabulary"), this becomes a very
> > slippery path... if we're not careful, we'll just end up rehashing the
> > same ground covered by other efforts (vcard, foaf, schema.org, org
> > ontology, etc). As much as possible, we ought to be looking at these
> > existing vocabularies before attempting to hash out anything else.
> >
> > For instance, we simply don't need an as:Person when we already have
> > things like foaf:Agent, schema.org/Person, vcard:Individual,
> > prov:Agent, and likely many others. One thing that would likely help
> > is to start documenting the abstract generalized concepts then mapping
> > those to the existing vocabularies, we can then see where the gaps
> > exist. I've started working on that here:
> >
> > https://www.w3.org/wiki/Socialwg/Social_Vocabulary
> >
> > - James
> >
> >> On Tue, Nov 4, 2014 at 12:58 PM, Owen Shepherd <owen.shepherd@e43.eu>
> 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
> >>
> >> 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
> >>
> >> This gives us an ontology somewhat like this (where each indent level
> >> implies a subclass relationship)
> >>
> >> as:Object - Base type
> >>
> >> as:Actor?
> >> A "producer"/"consumer" in AS ontology
> >>
> >> as:Person - A human being
> >> Others for "bots"?
> >>
> >> 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
> >> ...
> >>
> >> 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)
> >>
> >> Thoughts?
> >>
> >> Owen
>