W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-socialweb@w3.org > August 2015

Re: social-ISSUE-45 (mf2jsonldconflicts): Conflicts between json-ld and mf2 examples [Activity Streams 2.0]

From: Sarven Capadisli <info@csarven.ca>
Date: Tue, 11 Aug 2015 00:42:39 +0200
Message-ID: <55C928DF.5020300@csarven.ca>
To: public-socialweb@w3.org
On 2015-08-10 20:37, Social Web Working Group Issue Tracker wrote:
> social-ISSUE-45 (mf2jsonldconflicts): Conflicts between json-ld and mf2 examples [Activity Streams 2.0]
> http://www.w3.org/Social/track/issues/45
> Raised by: Benjamin Roberts
> On product: Activity Streams 2.0
> As was mentioned by https://www.w3.org/Social/track/issues/44 there is a disparity between several examples in AS2 between JSON-LD and MF2.
> Examples should be reviewed on a case-by-case basis considering
> A) Can AS2 be improved to better represent pragmatic social web publishing and consuming experience?
> B) Are there real world use-cases implied by AS2 features that need documentation as input for proposing new microformats2 properties (or possibly objects)
> C) A combination of both A and B

ISSUE-44 is about the removal of the microformats (mf) examples from the 
AS2, because 1) ACTION-26 is incomplete, and there is no good sign for 
it to be complete with reasonable quality as part of a W3C 
Recommendation because, 2) it is out of place; i) the mf examples do not 
demonstrate a "generally equivalent" "serialization" of the JSON-LD 
examples, ii) do not demonstrate the semantics underlying AS examples, 
and iii) there is no work in the mf wiki which can reasonably 
demonstrate the AS2's breadth and depth coverage of "social" activities. 
This is still acknowledging that AS2 is a work in progress.

Meanwhile, this issue's (ISSUE-45) core concern is to improve the AS2 
examples, in order to improve the mf examples. That proposal is flawed 
and backwards. The example statements/activities are what we start with, 
i.e., the human language describing the desired social Web activities 
(e.g., based on interest, existing practices on the Web, business cases, 
or whatever else there may be). Producing a machine-processable 
implementation is the second step. What you are proposing is 
fundamentally to see how can we reshape the examples in order to fulfil 
the limitations of the code based on an external community's (mf) 
centralized vocabulary development and process. If how we represent 
those examples in code is critical, then the simplest solution (and the 
one in which requires the least amount of effort) is to re-use what's 
available from the existing W3C Recommendations. One simple 
consideration to make here is to see whether the toolbox you want to 
work with is appropriate.

Specific to your proposals points:

A) Define "pragmatic social web publishing and consuming experience", 
and explain why that is the criteria that you have selected, and well as 
what other criteria that you have considered, and why they were 
dismissed. If you can address these questions, then we can better 
understand what you mean by your proposal to improve the current AS2.

As per your proposal to improve, which parts of AS2 have you 
implemented? What are your limitations with AS2? Can you create GitHub 
issues for them?

B) Start with what is already in the current AS2 examples. Take it to 
the mf community, run it through the mf process. Bring back whatever 
passes the mf process, place them in respective AS2 MF examples.

PS: There is now (today) a proposal to publish Activity Streams 2.0 as a 
Candidate Recommendation.

Received on Monday, 10 August 2015 22:43:52 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 17:26:19 UTC