Re: Activity Streams Vocabulary

On 09/22/2014 12:34 AM, James M Snell wrote:
> This note might go a bit long. If so, my apologies.
No need to apologize James, *thank you* for taking you time to write
such in depth message!

> 
> First: a quick history of Activity Streams 2.0
> 
> The first version of Activity Streams 2.0 that I published as an
> Internet Draft used JSON-LD as the primary serialization. Instead of
> "objectType", I used "@type" and had dropped the "verb" property
> entirely. The "id" property had become "@id". I used the "@language"
> instead of just "language". As soon as I published that initial draft,
> the feedback on the existing Activity Streams mailing list was that
> breaking compatibility with Activity Streams 1.0 was unacceptable.
> 
> To address the compatibility concern, I backed off the changes and
> took a "JSON-LD Compatible" approach that allowed Activity Streams 1.0
> to be forward compatible with 2.0. In order to accomplish this, I had
> to jump through a few hoops with the compatibility rules currently
> outlined in [1].
> 
> I took some time this past week to have a detailed conversation with
> Arnaud, reviewing IBM's goals around Activity Streams and determining
> exactly what our requirements are. That discussion settled on one very
> specific point: although we have product shipping today that uses the
> Activity Streams 1.0 syntax, maintaining forwards or backwards
> compatibility with that syntax in whatever this WG produces is *not* a
> critical requirement for us.
Glad to hear that, I also suggested to discuss it in a past for teleconf
on Sep 16th, now it looks like we can just mark it as resolved \o/

http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-socialweb/2014Sep/0046.html
https://github.com/jasnell/w3c-socialwg-activitystreams/issues/14


> 
> After discussing it, Our proposal is to:
> 
> A. Define a formal Activity and Actions Ontology based on [2].
> B. Define a requirement that all implementations MUST at least support
> a JSON-LD serialization of this Ontology.
> C. Model the Actions Ontology after the approach currently taken by
> schema.org/Actions but without actually copying or using the
> schema.org vocabulary.

Sounds like reasonable way to keep on moving forward! I'll do what I can
to look on how it aligns with concepts existing in
http://schema.org/docs/actions.html

I also hope Markus Lanthaler can support modeling Actions with his
experience from ongoing work on Hydra and contributions to
Schema.org/Action design (see attribution in
http://blog.schema.org/2014/04/announcing-schemaorg-actions.html )

Once again *Thank You James* for all the hard work you keep putting into
this standardization effort!

Received on Monday, 22 September 2014 09:35:33 UTC