Re: ActivityStreams Schema: Hierarchy of Types

Markus Lanthaler writes:

> On Wednesday, November 05, 2014 9:38 AM, Owen Shepherd wrote:
>> I’m in favour of us defining our own types for the core elements because
>> • Requiring people to remember that its’ foam:Person and
>> org:Organization and … will quickly get confusing. The core types we
>> need should be part of the specification, whether that be the AS2
>> specification or some “AS2 Base Schema”
>> Put simply, non JSON-LD processors shouldn’t need to know about card
>> or foaf or unless they specifically wish to do so (i.e.
>> they wish to take advantage of some features from there)
> Just to make this clear: If we define the JSON-LD context properly and
> decide on *a* vocabulary (instead of just recommending some) people
> neither need to remember a prefix nor need non-JSON-LD processors care
> about this.
> Let's first model the abstract concepts we need and then see whether
> there's enough overlap with an existing vocabulary to justify its use.

I think this is the best route.  A json-ld context can contain multiple
vocabulary sources, so there's no need to reinvent terms except where

I think James is on the right tack with working on:

Maybe once an appropriate list is gathered here, one or more example
contexts can be put forward making available all terms, and we can then

Received on Wednesday, 12 November 2014 22:37:44 UTC