Re: ActivityStreams Schema: Hierarchy of Types

On 11/12/2014 11:33 PM, Christopher Allan Webber wrote:
> 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 schema.org 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
> needed.
> 
> I think James is on the right tack with working on:
> 
> https://www.w3.org/wiki/Socialwg/Social_Vocabulary
> 
> 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
> discuss/vote?
I suggested today during IG teleconf, that WG could focus on modeling
concepts we work on in the way we 'dream of', and in Social IG
Vocabulary TF [1] we can work on research how to map it to existing
vocabularies. I don't think we should rush with any decisions and rather
can take our time to do proper research in IG.

[1] https://www.w3.org/wiki/Socialig/Vocabulary_TF

Received on Wednesday, 12 November 2014 22:50:27 UTC