- From: James M Snell <jasnell@gmail.com>
- Date: Wed, 22 Oct 2014 23:30:40 +0000
- To: ☮ elf Pavlik ☮ <perpetual-tripper@wwelves.org>, Social Web Working Group <public-socialweb@w3.org>, tantek@cs.stanford.edu
- Message-ID: <CABP7RbcQJi2ZYa2cEXyxb6XxjMsY10-De0KnV1qNupf8HKovxA@mail.gmail.com>
I'm planning on attending the BOF. On Wed, Oct 22, 2014, 4:28 PM ☮ elf Pavlik ☮ <perpetual-tripper@wwelves.org> wrote: > Hello, > > I asked Sam Goto, who leads schema.org/Action development, if he would > like to join this Wednesday TPAC session[1]. He replied: > > "I don't know yet ... if most people are interested in things like > licensing and legalises of schema.org, Guha is going and can represent > that a lot better than I. > > If, however, there are folks that are interested in discussing the > technical/concrete merits of one approach over the other, than I think > it is a forum that I can contribute to constructively. > > The last time I presented to this group there wasn't anything that I > could really respond to, so I'm unsure if I'll attend." > > > Since schema:Action and as:Activity have huge overlap [2], as well as > as:PotentialActionHandler and schema:EntryPoint. I think it would make a > lot of sense to take opportunity of meeting face to face to see > possibilities of coordinating our efforts. > > James, currently I don't see you among people interested in > participating in this session. Would you consider discussing technical > aspects of ActivityStreams 2.0 and Schema.org/Action with Sam? > > Tantek, maybe you could also bring experience with <indie-action>[3] to > the table? > > I also added to session description links to > * http://activitystrea.ms/head/activity-schema.html#verbs > * http://activitystrea.ms/head/activity-schema.html#object-types > > This topic I see on the border of techinical / political? discussion. > IMO having ActivityStreams, Schema.org and Microformats all defining > very similar concepts doesn't make live easier for people who implement > publishing and consuming of social data :( > > Could we try to clarify interests for that meeting among Social WG > participants in next 2 days and then also have conversation over > public-vocabs? > > I see combining legal / technical / hybrid topics somehow challenging ... > > Cheers! > > [1] https://www.w3.org/wiki/TPAC2014/SessionIdeas#Schema.org_and_Social_WG > [2] > https://www.w3.org/wiki/Socialwg/Vocabulary_Comparison#as:Activity_.7C.7C_ > schema:Action > [3] http://indiewebcamp.com/webactions >
Received on Wednesday, 22 October 2014 23:31:08 UTC