- From: ☮ elf Pavlik ☮ <perpetual-tripper@wwelves.org>
- Date: Thu, 29 Jan 2015 21:32:01 +0100
- To: "public-socialweb@w3.org" <public-socialweb@w3.org>
- Message-ID: <54CA98C1.8000406@wwelves.org>
Howdy! This email acts as sort of follow up on one I've send on Dec 1st and which didn't receive any replies https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-socialweb/2014Dec/0002.html I just picked up again work on automated testing of RDF based serializations and just fixed errors in first three Turtle examples. https://github.com/jasnell/w3c-socialwg-activitystreams/issues/65 It may take me some time to fix errors in most of the remaining Turtle examples and then check all the RDFa as well. But in the end we will have automated tests proving that all JSON-LD, RDFa and Turtle examples serialize exactly the same RDF graphs. After that I could take a look at possibility of contributing RDFa and Turtle support to https://github.com/jasnell/activitystreams.js Porting it to ruby also should come as straight forward process using existing libraries! Looking at latest WD http://www.w3.org/TR/2015/WD-activitystreams-core-20150129/ "This specification describes a JSON-based [RFC7159] serialization syntax for the Activity Vocabulary that follows the conventions defined by the [JSON-LD] specification. While serialization forms other than JSON-LD are possible, alternatives are not discussed by this document." Still it provides examples in JSON-LD, Microdata, RDFa, Microformats and Turtle. I think we could add little more clarification about their purpose in the spec! I have two questions here: * Does someone plan to create automated tests for Microdata and Microformat examples, similar to what I work on for RDFa and Turtle? * Does someone plan to contribute Microdata and Microformats support to activitystreams.js or any other AS2.0 implementation? Personally I would recommend using RDFa over Microdata. I just created placeholder to capture limitations on schema.org extensibility related to use of Microdata. https://github.com/schemaorg/schemaorg/wiki/Extension-Mechanism#limitations-of-microdata When it comes to Microformats, I would personally see more interest in helping with toolchain for migrating currently deployed systems to RDFa. IMO support for Microdata and Microformats might require some kind of recommendation for *graceful degradation*, especially if at some point we will get to digitally signing the content. I will happily see others proving me wrong here. Cheers!
Received on Thursday, 29 January 2015 20:32:25 UTC