Re: Activity Streams URI Namespace

The old terms (like upstreamduplicates, etc, would still be used in a
qualified way. We want to largely deprecate them but still make them
functional. I think I (now) agree that the w3c namespace for the legacy
terms would be better.

On Thu Oct 23 2014 at 9:00:12 AM Erik Wilde <dret@berkeley.edu> wrote:

> hello james.
>
> maybe this is a stupid question, but:
>
> On 2014-10-23, 8:46 , James M Snell wrote:
> > Then for any legacy AS1 terms, we would either keep using
> > http://activitystrea.ms/1.0/ (to highlight the fact that these older
> > terms are not officially endorsed/specified by the Working Group) or do:
> > http://www.w3.org/2011/activitystreams# (to highlight the year that
> > Activity Streams 1.0 was published)
>
> why would the actual old terms have a namespace at all? aren't they
> defined to be plain string literals and thus simply need to be listed
> somewhere as strings that have to be matched? where would that "legacy
> namespace URI" even come into play?
>
> or is the model that in AS2 the legacy terms would indeed be used in a
> qualified way? i suspect that's the case, but in that case, they
> wouldn't actually be the legacy terms anymore, because these are defined
> to be unqualified, right?
>
> they would be newly defined qualified terms, simply brought in from AS1.
> because of that i think it would make sense to use a "new namespace"
> (i.e., a w3c one), because the actual old terms really don't have one.
> using http://activitystrea.ms/1.0/ would mislead developers to think
> that the terms as they are used in AS1 are actually using this namespace.
>
> 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 |
>