Re: as:Like (a rdfs:Class) or as:like (a rdf:Property) ?

Hey Pavlik,

I've spent some time trying to untangle this today, and I hope I've
interpreted what you meant correctly...

Currently to like something with AS2:

* post a `Like` `Activity`, with `object` of liked-thing

I think you're suggesting to replace this with:

* post a `Create` `Activity` with `object` of `Relation` which has
`property` of `likes` and `object` of liked-thing.

On the basis that you think the **Social API** should specify a side-effect
of generating a `likes` direct relation between the liker and the
liked-thing? And that in the case of this side effect, being able to map
the qualified likes relation onto the direct likes relation using the same
term is useful? And that this would also allow you to shortcut the creation
of the `Activity` and just create the direct relation instead?

ActivityPump currently specs a similar side effect, of the `Like`
`Activity` triggering the adding of the subject and object to various
Collections which allows the improved querying I think is the main
advantage of the direct relations.

I'm still not totally sure what the advantages to this additional level of
abstraction for like relations is. As I see it, you've just replaced an
`Activity` object with an additional `Relation` object, and shuffled some
properties. Instinctively I don't think encouraging *only* direct relations
is good, but I can see how they'd be useful in addition to qualified
relations (which are *already* provided by an `Activity` with `actor` and
`object`).

The way it's done using microformats is different again, but more similar
to a `Like Activity`, except the `object` property is replaced with a
`like-of` property, and there is no explicit `type`. But this is still the
same qualified relation, in the same way AS2 does it. The semantics of the
`like-of` property are *not* the same as a `likes` property that would
exist between the liker and the liked-thing, so this doesn't match what
you're suggesting.

I don't think this needs to get any more complicated for
follow/subscribe/friend relations. ActivityStreams already has a
`Relationship` object for relationships between Actors, and doing a friend
request and acceptance using existing AS2 terms is walked through in
[3.1.1.1](
http://jasnell.github.io/w3c-socialwg-activitystreams/activitystreams-vocabulary/index.html#connections
).

On 14 August 2015 at 21:44, ☮ elf Pavlik ☮ <perpetual-tripper@wwelves.org>
wrote:

> Hello,
>
> I should have chance in next days to discuss this issue with people
> working on xAPI, please also notice creation of
> EXPERIENCE API (XAPI) VOCABULARY & SEMANTIC INTEROPERABILITY COMMUNITY
> GROUP
> * https://www.w3.org/community/xapivocabulary/
>
> Today, during xAPI Vocabulary call, Tom De Nies explained his work on
> http://tincan2prov.org
>
> In accompanying presentation, you can find diagram where *completed*
> verb appears as label of an edge. Which looks to me like rdf:Property
> see Slide 9
> *
>
> http://www.slideshare.net/tdenies/20150519-tom-de-nies-tin-can2prov-exposing-interoperable-provenance-of-learning-processes-through-experience-api-logs
>
> I still need to catch up with AS2.0 going CR thread but I think we
> should consider this possible non trivial change before deciding to go
> into CR...
>
> Cheers!
>
>
> On 07/20/2015 02:53 PM, ☮ elf Pavlik ☮ wrote:
> > Hello,
> >
> > (cc: IG Vocabulary TF)
> >
> > I would like to bring this topic to our attention right away, since it
> > may require non trivial change to current AS2 drafts.
> >
> > Currently we use sub classes of as:Activity for 'verbs', I see various
> > benefits of using properties instead. Some prior conversations where I
> > argued quite opposite:
> > https://github.com/jasnell/w3c-socialwg-activitystreams/issues/23
> >
> > My reflection come in big part from drawing diagrams representing graphs
> > with social data, for example:
> >
> > * https://github.com/w3c-social/social-vocab/tree/master/activity/Follow
> > *
> https://github.com/w3c-social/social-vocab/tree/master/activity/Subscribe
> >
> > As we see, to use direct relations (not qualified relations) we still
> > need predicates like: *follows*, *subscribes*, *likes*, *attends* etc.
> >
> > BTW I don't even pay attention now to what seems like a minor detail
> > follow/follows/followed like/likes/liked etc.
> >
> > It could possibly work much simpler to define verbs as
> > properties/predicates and just use them directly
> >
> > {
> >   "@context": [
> >     "http://www.w3.org/ns/activitystreams",
> >     "v": "http://w3id.org/verb/#"
> >    ],
> >   "@id": "https://wwelves.org/perpetual-tripper",
> >   "v:follow": [
> >     "https://aaronparecki.com/",
> >   ],
> >   "v:subscribes": [
> >     "https://aaronparecki.com/metrics",
> >   ],
> >   "v:attend": [
> >     "https://www.w3.org/wiki/Socialwg/2015-07-21",
> >   ]
> > }
> >
> > As for today, I don't see example of how to show 'who likes this
> > posting' - (similar to
> >
> https://developers.facebook.com/docs/graph-api/reference/v2.3/object/likes
> )
> >
> > I will prepare another example with an event, which will require linking
> > to collections of agents (actors) via edges: invite, subscribe, attend,
> > host, sponsor etc.
> > (similar to
> >
> https://developers.facebook.com/docs/graph-api/reference/v2.3/event#edges)
> >
> > Since we don't use (at least as normative) rdfs:domain and rdfs:range,
> > defining more specific sub classes of as:Activity doesn't seem to offer
> > any benefit.
> >
> > Some examples where actions/activities seems get used in a way that
> > would fit defining them as properties not classes:
> >
> > * http://adlnet.gov/expapi/verbs
> > * http://indiewebcamp.com/webactions#action_do_verbs
> > * http://microformats.org/wiki/h-listing#Properties (p-action)
> > * http://microformats.org/wiki/h-entry#Draft_Properties
> > * https://developer.github.com/v3/activity/events/types/
> >
> > I don't see any agenda for tomorrow yet, maybe we could all think about
> > it and have short initial discussion about pros and cons of those two
> > different approaches tomorrow?
> >
> > Cheers!
> >
>
>
>