- From: Erik Wilde <dret@berkeley.edu>
- Date: Tue, 11 Nov 2014 17:55:31 +0100
- To: public-socialweb@w3.org
- CC: Evan Prodromou <evan@e14n.com>
hello all.
On 2014-11-11, 15:20, Evan Prodromou wrote:
> I also think that for mainstream developers familiar with existing
> social APIs, there's not a lot of awareness of or patience for
> distinctions between the syntax and the vocabulary. We should be very
> careful that what we deliver is functional and usable by typical social
> software developers.
+(alot) to that. as pointed out by evan, it is rather questionable for
the WG to claim victory when all we deliver is a hollow shell, and then
handwave when it comes to explaining how this hollow shell is going to
be used *in interoperable ways*.
while i know that (for some reason that i cannot quite grasp) the w3c
really doesn't like registries all that much, i still think that AS
would be the classical candidate: have a base vocabulary for everybody,
and then have a place where people can look up what other vocabularies
users bothered to build and register.
cheers,
dret.
--
erik wilde | mailto:dret@berkeley.edu - tel:+1-510-2061079 |
| UC Berkeley - School of Information (ISchool) |
| http://dret.net/netdret http://twitter.com/dret |
Received on Tuesday, 11 November 2014 16:54:44 UTC