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

as:Like (a rdfs:Class) or as:like (a rdf:Property) ?

From: ☮ elf Pavlik ☮ <perpetual-tripper@wwelves.org>
Date: Mon, 20 Jul 2015 14:53:50 +0200
Message-ID: <55ACEF5E.5090601@wwelves.org>
To: public-socialweb@w3c.org
CC: "public-social-interest@w3.org" <public-social-interest@w3.org>
Hello,

(cc: IG Vocabulary TF)

I would like to bring this topic to our attention right away, since it
may require non trivial change to current AS2 drafts.

Currently we use sub classes of as:Activity for 'verbs', I see various
benefits of using properties instead. Some prior conversations where I
argued quite opposite:
https://github.com/jasnell/w3c-socialwg-activitystreams/issues/23

My reflection come in big part from drawing diagrams representing graphs
with social data, for example:

* https://github.com/w3c-social/social-vocab/tree/master/activity/Follow
* https://github.com/w3c-social/social-vocab/tree/master/activity/Subscribe

As we see, to use direct relations (not qualified relations) we still
need predicates like: *follows*, *subscribes*, *likes*, *attends* etc.

BTW I don't even pay attention now to what seems like a minor detail
follow/follows/followed like/likes/liked etc.

It could possibly work much simpler to define verbs as
properties/predicates and just use them directly

{
  "@context": [
    "http://www.w3.org/ns/activitystreams",
    "v": "http://w3id.org/verb/#"
   ],
  "@id": "https://wwelves.org/perpetual-tripper",
  "v:follow": [
    "https://aaronparecki.com/",
  ],
  "v:subscribes": [
    "https://aaronparecki.com/metrics",
  ],
  "v:attend": [
    "https://www.w3.org/wiki/Socialwg/2015-07-21",
  ]
}

As for today, I don't see example of how to show 'who likes this
posting' - (similar to
https://developers.facebook.com/docs/graph-api/reference/v2.3/object/likes)

I will prepare another example with an event, which will require linking
to collections of agents (actors) via edges: invite, subscribe, attend,
host, sponsor etc.
(similar to
https://developers.facebook.com/docs/graph-api/reference/v2.3/event#edges)

Since we don't use (at least as normative) rdfs:domain and rdfs:range,
defining more specific sub classes of as:Activity doesn't seem to offer
any benefit.

Some examples where actions/activities seems get used in a way that
would fit defining them as properties not classes:

* http://adlnet.gov/expapi/verbs
* http://indiewebcamp.com/webactions#action_do_verbs
* http://microformats.org/wiki/h-listing#Properties (p-action)
* http://microformats.org/wiki/h-entry#Draft_Properties
* https://developer.github.com/v3/activity/events/types/

I don't see any agenda for tomorrow yet, maybe we could all think about
it and have short initial discussion about pros and cons of those two
different approaches tomorrow?

Cheers!
Received on Monday, 20 July 2015 12:54:14 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 17:26:18 UTC