Re: ActivityStreams Schema: Hierarchy of Types

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