- From: ☮ elf Pavlik ☮ <perpetual-tripper@wwelves.org>
- Date: Sun, 21 Sep 2014 18:00:40 +0200
- To: public-socialweb@w3.org
On 09/10/2014 09:27 AM, ☮ elf Pavlik ☮ wrote: > On 09/09/2014 01:31 AM, Owen Shepherd wrote: >> Spurred by a conversation in [1] >> >> Our WG charter says that one of our deliverables is >> >> * >> >> *Social Data Syntax* >> A JSON-based syntax to allow the transfer of social >> information, such as status updates, across differing social >> systems. One input to this deliverable is ActivityStreams >> 2.0 <http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-snell-activitystreams-05>. >> >> Now, there is an open question of should we be defining a /syntax/ or a >> /vocabulary*/? > Reading at https://www.w3.org/wiki/Socialwg/Social_syntax_requirements > "Represent entities such as > * People > * Groups / Organizations > * Projects > * Events > * Relationships / Affiliations (interpersonal, organizational) > [...] > Ability to Represent "semantic content" such as > * Articles > * Badges > * Status Updates > * Albums > " > > Sounds to me like expectation of having some kind of vocabulary, but of > course I may interpret it wrong. Could we try clarify this distinction between /syntax/ and /vocabulary/ before tuesday call? I would also like to discuss if we want to follow http://www.w3.org/TR/rdf11-concepts/
Received on Sunday, 21 September 2014 16:02:54 UTC