Re: ActivityStreams Schema: Hierarchy of Types

On 11/13/2014 12:12 AM, 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.
I would say that we can base it on RDF data model so *those who chose
to* can take full advantage of it. Still if someone *chooses to* ignore
@context, then this implementation will treat the data as plain old
JSON, which uses unmapped strings. Constructs like "@type": ["Person",
"foaf:Person"] and similar don't force anyone to treat them as RDF. I
think we should still discourage (maybe even forbid) using JSON features
not supported by JSON-LD. So far I can only think of array of arrays
(GoeJSON-LD case).

Received on Wednesday, 12 November 2014 23:26:56 UTC