Re: Implicit vs explicit object types

Hey elf, James, and everyone.

First, elf, thanks for your replies - I'm going to go through your points
individually, along with others people have made on IRC and their own posts
in the past day, and continue to document my ever-shifting perspective.

On that note, I* don't* think we need to discuss it in the call tomorrow.
I'm certainly not sure enough about anything to be able to have a coherent
discussion, and I find it much easier to express myself in writing. I think
if others can put their thoughts into writing too, either in blog posts (as
Ben has here <https://ben.thatmustbe.me/article/2015/4/13/2/>) or emails (as
Owen has here
<https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-socialweb/2015Apr/0061.html>),
it will be much easier to figure out who agrees with what, why, and under
what conditions, and go from there.

I also think it will be much easier to discuss when we have a couple of
variations of activity streams implemented (from real social web
activities, not toy data) to compare. We can already compare for example
what's generated from pumpio with a microformats h-feed, which I'll take a
stab at writing up; and I'm going to try to generate both
fully-current-version-of-spec-compliant AS2 feed, and a variation, for my
own blog posts and activities. I'm also vaguely aware there are a couple of
projects converting silo feeds into AS (1 or 2, I'm not sure) so it'd
probably be good to also look at how things are mapped for those. I
*just* found
this wiki page: https://www.w3.org/wiki/Activity_Streams/Examples which is
mostly AS1, but has some AS2, and looks like something we could update with
further real world examples of different ways activities are modeled.
Possibly y'all have already done this research and I'm late to the party,
but if that's the case please please point me to any more documentation
about it!

Amy

On 13 April 2015 at 17:25, James M Snell <jasnell@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Mon, Apr 13, 2015 at 8:48 AM, ☮ elf Pavlik ☮
> <perpetual-tripper@wwelves.org> wrote:
> > On 04/13/2015 05:09 PM, James M Snell wrote:
> >> Amy: excellent analysis. Great to see.
> >>
> >> elf, Amy's post is quite good and I appreciate the enthusiasm but I'm
> >> not sure there's really anything in Amy's post that needs to be
> >> discussed on the call. We have lots of issues already that need to be
> >> worked through. I would encourage everyone to read what Amy has put
> >> together as well as take the time on their own to do similar analysis.
> >> That would certainly help matters.
> >
> > IMO Amy's point identifies significant differences in how participants
> > of this group may think about what and how we model. Unless Amy herself
> > doesn't want to introduce it shortly to the group, I would really like
> > that we can at least touch this issue even in form of 3-5 minutes
> > introduction.
> >
>
> To what end? The existing model *already* takes Amy's analysis into
> consideration and while it is certainly a valuable analysis that I
> would recommend everyone to take the time to read, there's absolutely
> nothing actionable. We have a list of issues already in the Issue
> tracker and in the github that we've been struggling to get through
> over the past couple of weeks. It would be great if we could take more
> time to get through the concrete actionable issues on the calls and
> leave the more academic modeling concerns to mailing list discussion.
>
> > Agenda for tomorrow doesn't look to heavy, especially that no one else
> > added any topics to it:
> >
> https://www.w3.org/wiki/index.php?title=Socialwg/2015-04-14&action=history
> >
>
> Have already done so. We also have a range of open issues in the
> tracker that still need to be discussed.
>
> - James
>
> > Maybe you could add topics you would like to discuss tomorrow to the
> > agenda, and this way give everyone better chance to prepare? We have a
> > lot of issues open in both w3c and github tracker, as well as numerous
> > open threads on the mailing list. Since we don't use any defined
> > milestones, not even set *pending review* status on issues and actions.
> > I find it rather challenging to know what we will work on during next
> > telecon :(
> >
>