- From: Bill Looby <bill_looby@ie.ibm.com>
- Date: Tue, 24 Mar 2015 21:23:07 +0000
- To: Evan Prodromou <evan@e14n.com>
- Cc: public-socialweb@w3.org
- Message-ID: <OF915DD4E4.74C99F07-ON80257E12.00743923-80257E12.007579E8@ie.ibm.com>
Had the same first reaction, based primarily on 'actor' being more intuitive. attributedTo also feels less exact regarding the persons relationship to the event, as we lose the notion of action, but the only (very unconvincing) example I can think of is that attributedTo could theoretically refer to either the actor (this event is attributed to Jane who commented on Joes Blog entry) or to the sender (this event is attributed to Joe, who hosts the referenced blog) of the event. Rgds, -Bill. _________________________________________ Bill Looby Software Architect, Dublin Software Lab, IBM Ireland IBM UK & Ireland Technical Staff Member Phone (Internal) : 515129 Phone (External) : +353 1 8155129 _________________________________________ IBM Ireland Product Distribution Limited registered in Ireland with number 92815. Registered office: IBM House, Shelbourne Road, Ballsbridge, Dublin 4. From: Evan Prodromou <evan@e14n.com> To: public-socialweb@w3.org Date: 24/03/2015 20:11 Subject: Re: Deprecate "actor" in favor of "attributeTo" I prefer "actor". "actor" seems much more readable and understandable. "attributedTo" seems indirect, passive, and uncertain. "Who attributes this action to this agent? Why? Are they potentially wrong?" -Evan On 2015-03-24 04:02 PM, James M Snell wrote: > In the most recent published working draft, the "author" property was > replaced by a more generalized "attributedTo" property. "author" is > still in there but is listed among the deprecated AS 1.0 terms. The > "actor" property on Activities is currently defined as a sub-property > of "attributedTo". Moving forward, there's likely very little value in > having the separate "actor" property. We can simplify and consolidate > down to just using "attributedTo". "actor" would be moved into the > deprecated set for backwards compatibility. > > So instead of: > > { > "@type": "Like", > "actor": "http://joe.example.org", > "object": "http://example.org/posts/1" > } > > It would be: > > { > "@type": "Like", > "attributedTo": "http://joe.example.org", > "object": "http://example.org/posts/1" > } > > Note: this proposal does not ADD anything to the vocabulary, it > removes. Which is a good thing.
Received on Tuesday, 24 March 2015 21:23:41 UTC