Re: ActivityStreams Schema: Hierarchy of Types

It's highly disappointing to me to see this working group continue
to run away from the existing vocabulary projects out there and work
to define it's own vocab. There is so much important work to be done
surrounding use cases, yet this group is literally back to square 0,
defining vocabs.

>  * as:Object - Base type
http://schema.org/Thing
>      o as:Actor?
>        A "producer"/"consumer" in AS ontology
>          + as:Person - A human being
http://schema.org/Person
>          + Others for "bots"?
https://schema.org/Organization not quite there
>      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
https://schema.org/CreativeWork
>          + as:Note - shortform text (e.g. a tweet)
https://schema.org/Comment
>          + as:Article - longform text
https://schema.org/Article
>          + as:Media(Object?) - Various types of multimedia (all share
https://schema.org/MediaObject
>            common properties)
>              # as:Audio
https://schema.org/AudioObject
>              # as:Video
https://schema.org/VideoObject
>              # as:Image
https://schema.org/ImageObject
>              # ...
>          + as:Location
https://schema.org/Place
>          + as:Collection
You don't get json do you? Json is all over your charter. Just use an array.

But if you insist on introducing bad things-
http://schema.org/ItemList
>          + ...
>      o as:Group
Missing. https://schema.org/Organization doesn't quite fit-- too big a concept.

> This then gives us a basis for declaring common properties (e.g. a
> Person doesn't have comments, but all content objects do)
>
> Thoughts?

I would like to see this working group work with others and focus on apis
and use cases for objects, rather than reinventing particular protoforms
for specfici objects.

I don't want you to feel coupled to work that has come before, but I'd
like to see your work defined as differences against existing ontologies
rather than try to bootstrap brand new ontologies into being after we've
been making ontologies for decades and having only further spaghettid messes
spread, further reducing the value of all other work ever done.

This group is not even chartered to be drawing up new vocabs. It's chartered
to make a transfer syntax (JSON based, perhaps JSONLD), a social api, and a
federation protocol. This work here could be in scope if it needs to be, but
would require a rechartering. I don't see why such a move ought be necessary.

Please don't do this. Please, stop.

Received on Friday, 7 November 2014 23:04:07 UTC