- From: Erik Wilde <dret@berkeley.edu>
- Date: Wed, 11 Feb 2015 09:10:01 -0800
- To: Bill Looby <bill_looby@ie.ibm.com>, "public-socialweb@w3.org" <public-socialweb@w3.org>
- CC: ☮ elf Pavlik ☮ <perpetual-tripper@wwelves.org>
hello bill. thanks for your response! On 2015-02-11 8:36 , Bill Looby wrote: > I believe Activity Streams 1.0 at one stage allowed multiple verbs which > addressed the issue below fairly simply but provided other complications > (and so was removed). With json-ld types, the association is not held in > the data itself so it's more complex to process. Definitely think this > is an important story. thanks and yes, to me that would be an interesting aspect of how my API behaves. this is not making any claims as to how i can filter through the API (which may be out of scope for the spec/API), but in terms of behavior, this is a question that matters a lot for our scenarios. in AS2, there are different possibilities how this can play out: - we define the class relationship in the core vocabulary is meaningful for behavior and AS2 implementations must implement it that way, so whatever is a "like" has to treated in the same way as a "respond". - we define that class relationship in the core vocabulary is not meaningful for behavior and AS2 implementations must implement it that way, so whatever is a "like" is not a "respond". if a producer wants their "like" to be treated as a "repond", they have to label them both ways (i.e., give them two types). - it gets trickier for the "likealot" because we cannot assume that this verb is hardcoded into implementations. if we want it to be treated as a "like"/"respond", then we need to explain how that is supposed to happen in an ecosystem of AS implementations that we do not want to require to support JSON-LD and RDFS. 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 Wednesday, 11 February 2015 17:10:28 UTC