W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-socialweb@w3.org > January 2015

clear strategy for multiple AS2.0 serializations?

From: ☮ elf Pavlik ☮ <perpetual-tripper@wwelves.org>
Date: Thu, 29 Jan 2015 21:32:01 +0100
Message-ID: <54CA98C1.8000406@wwelves.org>
To: "public-socialweb@w3.org" <public-socialweb@w3.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

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 17:26:14 UTC