Re: ActivityStreams Schema: Hierarchy of Types

On 11/08/2014 12:43 AM, Owen Shepherd wrote:
>> <>
>> 07 November 2014 23:03
>> 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.
> You cite exclusively, which we have excluded for the
> following reasons:
>  1. is not produced by any standards organization, nor does
>     it have any defined open contributor model. While the organizations
>     behind do accept contributions, they hold veto powers
>     over any modifications
>  2. alone is not sufficient for our use cases
>  3. Several of us find the technical quality of lacking. The
>     design of contains numerous things which are illogical
>     and badly designed.
If by saying "we have excluded" you refer to Social WG, could you please
provide an archive link to such RESOLUTION?

Received on Sunday, 9 November 2014 21:26:25 UTC