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

Re: Removing Activity Types not used by User Stories

From: ☮ elf Pavlik ☮ <perpetual-tripper@wwelves.org>
Date: Wed, 25 Mar 2015 10:21:24 +0100
Message-ID: <55127E14.1040206@wwelves.org>
To: James M Snell <jasnell@gmail.com>
CC: "public-socialweb@w3.org" <public-socialweb@w3.org>, Erik Wilde <dret@berkeley.edu>
On 03/24/2015 07:57 PM, James M Snell wrote:
> These terms are *already* defined in our Vocabulary. The question is
> whether they should remain within the Vocabulary. This is the right
> venue for discussing such topics.
I noticed that you have them included in the current *draft* of AS2.0
vocab. What do you think about more systematic work on *extracting*
vocabulary requirements from User Stories which I started as part of IG
Vocabulary TF work?
https://www.w3.org/wiki/Socialig/Vocabulary_TF/Mapping_API_User_Stories_to_Vocabulary_terms

BTW you can actually find your name on
https://www.w3.org/wiki/Socialig/Vocabulary_TF

Also I would like to point out section from Social IG charter
http://www.w3.org/2013/socialweb/social-ig-charter.html#id-other-deliverables

"Social Vocabularies: Various standards such as ActivityStreams and RDF
allow various items of shared interest, such as products and actions
("likes"), to be named with a URI for reasons of interoperability.
Vocabularies are sets of these related URIs around particular activities
(business processes, sharing, shopping). The Interest Group may maintain
a list of shared URIs relevant for the use of social standards."

IMO we really better focus in WG on other issues, one very relevant here

ISSUE-16: better separate grammar/vocabulary and improved spec structure
https://www.w3.org/Social/track/issues/16

Cheers!


> 
> On Tue, Mar 24, 2015 at 11:52 AM, ☮ elf Pavlik ☮
> <perpetual-tripper@wwelves.org> wrote:
>> On 03/24/2015 07:44 PM, James M Snell wrote:
>>> The current version of the Activity Streams Vocabulary includes a few
>>> Activity types that, while present in many example existing social
>>> networking platforms, are not captured in any of our user stories.
>>> Should we keep those or should we remove them (Note that any
>>> implementation can add those back in as extension types)
>>>
>>> The candidates for removal are: Achieve, Claim, Reservation, Arrive, Travel
>>>
>>> Achieve: Would used primarily to indicate that actor has achieved the
>>> object. This is fairly specialized and can likely be safely removed
>>> without impact.
>>>
>>> Claim: Would be used to indicate that actor is claiming the object.
>>> This is fairly specialized and can likely be safely removed without
>>> impact.
>>>
>>> Reservation, Arrive and Travel deal largely with Geo-location use
>>> cases that are very broadly implemented but are currently not covered
>>> by our user stories. That's quite interesting in itself -- geolocation
>>> functions are ubiquitous to social platforms and yet none of our user
>>> stories seem to reflect that fact. Hmmmm.....
>>
>> I would prefer to focus in WG on providing a clear way to define domain
>> specific activity types and don't loose our energy on such vocasb terms
>> specific conversations here.
>>
>> Jason from xAPI already applied to join IG and we could work with their
>> real world requirements from
>> http://www.adlnet.gov/tla/experience-api/xapi-cop-directory/
>>
> 



Received on Wednesday, 25 March 2015 09:21:47 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Thursday, 8 December 2016 15:48:21 UTC