Erik Wilde wrote: > > On 2014-11-13, 00:04, ☮ elf Pavlik ☮ wrote: >> >> On 11/12/2014 11:50 PM, Owen Shepherd wrote: >>> >>> 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..." >> >> I see limitations with depending to much on inference, for example >> unhosted[1] apps which run fully in a browser as for today don't have >> any reasoners available (javascrip) :( > > > it would be very helpful to make a very clear (and hopefully > subsequently stable) decision on whether AS implementations are > expected to operate on the RDF data model, and specifically use > inference, or not. if that's the case, we will explicitly exclude the > vast majority of implementations and implementers out there. My assumption is that this is *not* the case. The requirement to normalize everything to the ActivityStreams vocabulary types extends directly from this compatibility requirement: such normalization shouldn't be tricky for someone with a reasoner. My opinion is that while RDF is a very useful data model, "application/activitystreams+json" should be an opinionated version of it.
Received on Wednesday, 12 November 2014 23:14:59 UTC