Re: ActivityStreams Schema: Hierarchy of Types

> Christopher Allan Webber <mailto:cwebber@dustycloud.org>
> 12 November 2014 22:33
>
> 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 don't disagree with reuse where appropriat, but nobody covers our core 
vocabulary.

Our vocabulary should not just be a mush together of existing 
vocabularies. It should be definitions of facts like "A Person is an 
Actor is an Object", "An Article is a Post(?) is an Object".

Even if we delegate to other vocabularies for specifics (and we should - 
e.g. VCard for people, Org for organizations, iCalendar for events), we 
need to define the core vocabulary ourselves - That is, the basic common 
object model (i.e. titles, authors, etc) in order to integrate it into a 
holistic whole and integrate important attachment points (e.g. comments, 
a person's followers, etc).

Whether we define our own types as aliases of others - e.g. "as:Person 
owl:sameType vcard:Individual" - or just refer to others is kind of 
immaterial, though I'm in favor of the aliasing because that 
implementers don't have to think "People come from VCard, Events come 
from iCalendar, businesses come from Org..."

IMO an implementer shouldn't have to think about who we are delegating 
to until they care about the "extra features" that the external 
vocabulary provides.

(We should also require that, where an alias exists, the ActivityStreams 
namespace version MUST be used)

     - Owen