- From: Harry Halpin <hhalpin@w3.org>
- Date: Mon, 22 Sep 2014 13:00:12 +0200
- To: public-socialweb@w3.org
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
On 09/22/2014 11:42 AM, ☮ elf Pavlik ☮ wrote:
> On 09/22/2014 12:40 AM, Harry Halpin wrote:
>>
>>
>> On 09/21/2014 07:24 PM, Erik Wilde wrote:
>>> what about:
>>
>>> On 2014-09-21, 9:00, ☮ elf Pavlik ☮ wrote:
>>>>>> Now, there is an open question of should we be defining a
>>>>>> /syntax/ or a /vocabulary*/?
>>
>>> we need both.
>>
>>> - a vocabulary is the set of concepts that are meaningful for
>>> the relevant domain. you can define a vocabulary in some
>>> existing metamodel framework, or do it ad hoc. both choices
>>> have good and bad side-effects.
>>
>>> - a syntax is a representation that has well-defined rules how
>>> to serialize a vocabulary instance into the representation,
>>> and how to parse a representation into the domain model.
>>> without a syntax, you cannot have protocols or other ways of
>>> exchanging data.
>>
>>>> Could we try clarify this distinction between /syntax/ and
>>>> /vocabulary/ before tuesday call?
>>
>>> is the above distinction clear enough? for AS1, it was pretty
>>> clear:
>>
>>> - the vocabulary was in an ad hoc metamodel, and thus there was
>>> little baggage (but also little out-of-the-box support)
>>> associated with it.
>>
>>> - the syntaxes were JSON and Atom, and for both syntaxes it was
>>> defined how the vocabulary model maps to the syntax model.
>>
>> Correct.
>>
>> We are focussed on the syntax. This is going to be JSON (possibly
>> JSON-LD), plus whatever minimal metadata is needed to support
>> activity streams (i.e. status updates and actions in a generic
>> sense).
> Can we also consider Online Presence?
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Online_Presence_Ontology
While presence is of course interesting, just because some folks made
a RDF vocabulary out of something at some point - particularly if it
has little to no users or working implementations - does not mean it
should be part of the core syntax. Please redirect that discussion to
the Social IG.
cheers,
harry
>
>>
>> Note that *generic vocabulary* discussion is out-of-scope for the
>> Social WG supposed to happen in the Social Interest Group. For
>> example, vocabularies for "friends" and the like which are
>> covered by numerous vocabularies (schema.org, XFN, vCard,
>> PortableContacts, FOAF, etc.) can be sorted out there. Same with
>> many other vocabularies, like expert-finding. There's a lot of
>> Social Vocabularies and we should keep this WG focussed.
> Good point Harry! Lloyd Fassett leading Social IG Vocabulary TF
> seems super motivated. Let's move this non Activity/Action
> (Presence?) related work to IG then.
>
>>
>> http://www.w3.org/Social/IG/
>>
>> I can see how one can call ActivityStreams 2.0 metadata and
>> schema.org actions "vocabularies", and that's fine - but should
>> constrain the vocabulary discussion to the minimal vocabulary
>> necessary for status updates and actions.
> +1 especially that we have a ton of work on API coming up so
> keeping it JSON(-LD) and staying agnostic to the vocab of the
> actual payload makes sense to me
>
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.11 (GNU/Linux)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=SPLv
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Received on Monday, 22 September 2014 11:00:21 UTC