- From: Erik Wilde <dret@berkeley.edu>
- Date: Tue, 10 Feb 2015 15:14:43 -0800
- To: "public-socialweb@w3.org" <public-socialweb@w3.org>
hello. i am wondering if anybody has an opinion on whether the following script qualifies as a user story and i should add it, or whether people think it's something different. it's about the processing model aspect i was talking about in today's call. - the vocabulary currently has a "like" verb that is defined to be a subclass of the "respond" verb. - let's assume a scenario has created a "likealot" verb that is a subclass of the "like" verb. - user alice is listening to activities somewhere in an AS ecosystem and has set up a filter that is asking for "respond" activities. - user bob posts a "like" and a "likealot" activity somewhere into this ecosystem. - alice now sees what? well, that last part is not really a "story" and i think we have (at least) four choices: 1. alice will see nothing because bob's activities are not "respond" 2. alice see only the "like" because the core vocab says it is "respond" 3. alice sees "like" and "likealot" because they are both "respond" 4. we cannot tell what alice sees because the spec doesn't tell us. i am curious to hear what people think. personally, i would hope we end up with 3, and then the next interesting question is how to make that happen in an interoperable way. but first i am wondering whether that's a story at all, or just by permanent fixation on the processing model. thanks and cheers, dret. -- erik wilde | mailto:dret@berkeley.edu - tel:+1-510-2061079 | | UC Berkeley - School of Information (ISchool) | | http://dret.net/netdret http://twitter.com/dret |
Received on Tuesday, 10 February 2015 23:15:09 UTC