W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-socialweb@w3.org > October 2014

Re: TPAC: Schema.org and Social WG ( legal / technical )

From: James M Snell <jasnell@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 22 Oct 2014 23:30:40 +0000
Message-ID: <CABP7RbcQJi2ZYa2cEXyxb6XxjMsY10-De0KnV1qNupf8HKovxA@mail.gmail.com>
To: ☮ elf Pavlik ☮ <perpetual-tripper@wwelves.org>, Social Web Working Group <public-socialweb@w3.org>, tantek@cs.stanford.edu
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

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 17:26:13 UTC