Definition of Collection and LDP Paging - was: definition of as:Collection and as:items very confused

> On 24 Apr 2015, at 14:59, James M Snell <jasnell@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> items being marked as functional in the non - normative turtle is purely accidental. Note that the normative text defined the actual definition. If there are corrections you'd suggest to the turtle definition so that it is a closer match to the text, PRs are helpful
> 
Well one fix that suggests itself is to remove the functional restriction from the Ontology that is added to the text, which you call non-normative, but which is likely the one to be read by machines who have a lot less interpretative skills than humans. 

In what I now know is the "normative" section of the spec it states under Collection ( http://www.w3.org/TR/activitystreams-vocabulary/#dfn-collection )

> A Collection is a subclass of Object <http://www.w3.org/TR/activitystreams-vocabulary/#dfn-object> that represents ordered or unordered sets of Object <http://www.w3.org/TR/activitystreams-vocabulary/#dfn-object> or Link <http://www.w3.org/TR/activitystreams-vocabulary/#dfn-link> instances. The model for collections within the Activity Vocabulary is designed largely around the abstract model of "logical feeds" and "pages" discussed in [RFC5005 <http://www.w3.org/TR/activitystreams-vocabulary/#bib-RFC5005>], Section 1.2.

But since all of this is related to paging, why not rather work a bit more closely with what
the LDP group has done under the leadership of Arnaud Le Hors who  works for the 
same company  you are working for ( IBM ) and that is available here:

  https://dvcs.w3.org/hg/ldpwg/raw-file/default/ldp-paging.html 

This also references the same RFC5005 . It seems a bit of a waste of people's time here
to have to go through the same work twice here for no clear reason. 

Furthermore Paging is very much a protocol related feature, which can be applied to pretty much all information retrieval, as it was shown in the LDP group. As a result adding paging to activity streams is not really the right place for it. It should be a generic feature of the spec.

Henry

> .
> 
> On Apr 24, 2015 1:28 AM, "henry.story@bblfish.net <mailto:henry.story@bblfish.net>" <henry.story@bblfish.net <mailto:henry.story@bblfish.net>> wrote:
> https://github.com/jasnell/w3c-socialwg-activitystreams/issues/104