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

+1
On Aug 12, 2015 6:15 PM, "Melvin Carvalho" <melvincarvalho@gmail.com> wrote:

>
>
> On 11 August 2015 at 00:42, Sarven Capadisli <info@csarven.ca> wrote:
>
>> 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.
>>
>
> This was discussed during the call, unfortunately we were quite pushed for
> time.  Lots of good points were raised, which I dont think were completely
> captured in this conversation.
>
> Arnaud's major objection to issue 44 seemed to be with the formulation of
> the title.  e.g. that it was phrased more as a proposal than an issue.
> Seemed to be a pretty valid point.
>
> The suggestion was to merge 44 + 45 together, however, it was pointed out
> that 44 and 45 are quite unrelated.
>
> Another suggestion was to reformulate the title into the issue that AS2
> and MF2 are not aligned.
>
> The other point made was that the examples are informative and not
> normative.
>
> To this extend I could imagine a stance of "this is something I dont
> particularly like, but could live with" happening.  My concern is that work
> on improving MF2 slows down AS2 from getting to CR.
>
> I think the misalignment of AS2 and MF2 is one part of a bigger question,
> and that is whether MF2 as a vocab should have special treatment in the
> spec, largely due to the WG having a lot of MF2 voting members.
>
> Things I'd like to see I see with MF2 in general are:
> - A stable reference vocab document, much like the AS2 vocab
> - Alignment between AS2 and MF2 terms
> - Clear understanding of how the MF2 process would work
> - Machine readable interpretations of the terms, as per AS2
> - Alignment with existing W3C RECs (ie linked data) as per AS2
>
> But even if all these were achieved, should MF2 get special treatment,
> over, say : schema.org, facebook open graph (which have more adoption),
> or FOAF/SIOC.  Probably still not, imho.  I can see it being valuable in a
> primer or not, but in the REC itself, would it just be confusing?  Hard to
> say.
>
> All these things seem to be a "nice to have", rather than, a must.  Would
> be nice to get AS2 to CR and then look towards implementations and test
> suite.
>
> My take on this is that I dont think MF2 should be in the doc, but it's
> something I could live with.  I'd like to see improvements, but not to the
> extent that AS2 gets slowed down by having an MF2 dependency.
>
>
>>
>>
>>
>> PS: There is now (today) a proposal to publish Activity Streams 2.0 as a
>> Candidate Recommendation.
>>
>> -Sarven
>> http://csarven.ca/#i
>>
>>
>