- From: ☮ elf Pavlik ☮ <perpetual-tripper@wwelves.org>
- Date: Wed, 25 Mar 2015 10:21:24 +0100
- To: James M Snell <jasnell@gmail.com>
- CC: "public-socialweb@w3.org" <public-socialweb@w3.org>, Erik Wilde <dret@berkeley.edu>
- Message-ID: <55127E14.1040206@wwelves.org>
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