- From: Erik Wilde <dret@berkeley.edu>
- Date: Wed, 18 Feb 2015 08:20:39 -0800
- To: ☮ elf Pavlik ☮ <perpetual-tripper@wwelves.org>, Social Web Working Group <public-socialweb@w3.org>
hello elf. On 2015-02-18 2:38 , ☮ elf Pavlik ☮ wrote: > relevant User Story which I added yesterday right after telecon > https://www.w3.org/wiki/Socialwg/Social_API/User_stories#Using_custom_types_of_Activity > # Ben wants to use custom Activity type: Earned > # Ben defines Earned as specialization of a core type: Achieve > # Nina subscribes to Ben's stream with Achieve type of activities > # Nine also now also receives from her subscription Earned type of > activities > (based on current work in Open Badges + xAPI) > https://github.com/openbadges/openbadges-specification/pull/22#issuecomment-73144928 thanks for that. so this looks at the case where the quesrtion is how to treat an "extension activity" that's supposed to be a specialization of a "core activity". that's an important story. should we also have a story that looks at the same setup but with both activity types from the core vocabulary? it could be either "like" and "respond" (subtypes) or "like" and "favorite". basically anything where the vocabulary definition implies a relationship between activity types that probably should be part of 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 Wednesday, 18 February 2015 16:21:08 UTC