RE: Apologies (former: ActivityStreams Schema: Hierarchy of Types)

I would like to acknowedge and thank Erik and elf for this small, cordial back-and-forth. 

It is so common with our modern electronic communications that people are rude and insensitive.  It's a pleasure that you guys have taken a more considerate path.  Thanks!  

(And, it's rather appalling that I feel the need to acknowledge what should be 'normal' behavior.)

  -- Ann

Ann Bassetti



> -----Original Message-----
> From: Erik Wilde [mailto:dret@berkeley.edu]
> Sent: Thursday, November 13, 2014 8:11 AM
> To: ☮ elf Pavlik ☮
> Cc: public-socialweb@w3.org
> Subject: Re: Apologies (former: ActivityStreams Schema: Hierarchy of Types)
> 
> hello elf.
> 
> On 2014-11-13, 12:38, ☮ elf Pavlik ☮ wrote:
> > On 11/13/2014 12:51 AM, Erik Wilde wrote:
> > please accept my apologies for possibly turning our conversation
> > yesterday into an argument :(
> 
> there's absolutely no need to apologize. you raised a valid question and
> i was just thinking about a good way to respond. i should do that with
> actual examples, but before i do that, here are the some things we
> should care and think about:
> 
> - cases in which a client with JSON goggles sees something, and clients
> with JSON-LD goggles see something else. in the end, AS should be clear
> about what the relevant content of AS is, and how clients are expected
> to extract that from AS. if we have cases where that's not true, we have
> a problem, because different implementations then see different things,
> and that's an interoperability problem.
> 
> - cases in which a client with JSON-LD goggles sees one thing, and this
> can be serialized in ways that lead to different JSON "views" of that
> thing. (a classical example for this kind of problem are XML namespace
> prefixes, which are supposed to be irrelevant, and to complicate things
> further, not all implementations allow full control over serialization.)
> this would mean that JSON-LD-goggled clients would never realize nor
> might they even have control over the fact that some JSON-LD
> peculiarities can result in relevant differences for JSON-goggled clients.
> 
> - another thing i was wondering about is context drift. if the JSON
> counts, then the JSON-LD interpretation may change if the context
> definition changes, and that's neither under control nor even visible to
> AS producers and consumers. that's for example one reason why in many
> communities, any external information that materially changes a
> document's interpretation (classical examples are schema languages with
> default values) is severely frowned upon. is that a scenario we want to
> consider? should we at least mention it and say that JSON and JSON-LD
> interpretation can drift apart in the light of context changes?
> 
> but you were absolutely right to ask for examples, and that's on my to
> do list. i hope my (still generic) explanations are a little bit clearer
> with regard to the scenarios i am worried about.
> 
> thanks and cheers,
> 
> dret.
> 
> --
> erik wilde | mailto:dret@berkeley.edu  -  tel:+1-510-2061079 |
>             | UC Berkeley  -  School of Information (ISchool) |
>             | http://dret.net/netdret http://twitter.com/dret |

Received on Thursday, 13 November 2014 20:14:02 UTC