- 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