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

Re: AS2.0: JSON and/or RDF based?

From: ☮ elf Pavlik ☮ <perpetual-tripper@wwelves.org>
Date: Mon, 09 Feb 2015 01:47:01 +0100
Message-ID: <54D80385.6010703@wwelves.org>
To: Harry Halpin <hhalpin@w3.org>, public-socialweb@w3.org
On 02/08/2015 05:10 PM, Harry Halpin wrote:
> On 02/06/2015 11:58 PM, ☮ elf Pavlik ☮ wrote:
>> Ahoy o/
> 
>> I think we could try document this topic somewhere on a wiki. In
>> recent conversation on github with Erik[1] we stumbled upon again
>> on topic of conceptual model used in Activity Streams 2.0 
>> https://www.w3.org/wiki/Socialwg/Social_Syntax_RDF
> 
>> Personally I don't see conflict between JSON and RDF mostly thanks
>> to availability of JSON-LD. Currently AS2.0 not only uses JSON-LD
>> but AS2.0 Vocabulary also takes advantage of RDFS and even OWL.
>> Since we clearly reuse established conceptual model, maybe we could
>> clarify and document adopted aspects?
> 
> I think the charter is clear: It's JSON-based. Any use of RDF(S) or
> OWL inference is fine or alternative serializations is fine, but
> should not be required (and thus non-normative).
Let's try to clarify if further! Do you say that we can use
rdfs:subClassOf but can not use it as formal way to say that one can
consider an individual in given sub class also an individual in its
super class?

BTW I looked lately on RDFa Vocabulary Expansion
http://www.w3.org/TR/rdfa-core/#s_vocab_expansion

RDFa Vocabulary Entailmen looks pretty lightweight
http://www.w3.org/TR/rdfa-core/#s_vocab_entailment

rdf:type
rdfs:subClassOf
rdfs:subPropertyOf
owl:equivalentClass
owl:equivalentProperty

As you see it doesn't even use rdfs:domain and rdfs:range
(which possibly Tantek may start reinventing now
http://www.w3.org/Social/track/actions/35 ;)


Received on Monday, 9 February 2015 00:47:36 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Thursday, 8 December 2016 15:48:20 UTC