Re: Removing Activity Types not used by User Stories

On 03/25/2015 10:42 AM, Erik Wilde wrote:
> hello elf.
Hi Erik,

> On 2015-03-25 10:21, ☮ elf Pavlik ☮ wrote:
>> IMO we really better focus in WG on other issues, one very relevant here
>> ISSUE-16: better separate grammar/vocabulary and improved spec structure
> of course i have to pitch in here because that was my proposal a little
> while ago. i think it's clear that AS2 needs to be open and needs a
> solid model for extensibility. what AS1 called the "base schema" simply
> should be the first and w3c-blessed extension that implementations
> should support.
Let's also keep in mind distinction between *vocabularies* and normative
*JSON-LD context*. We need to figure out if we need to freeze this
context or we can extend it after publishing the spec. This JSON-LD
context will allow people to work with simple strings using compacted
form and don't get into which vocabulary(ies) they map in expanded form
to full URIs.

At the same time, people who want to use extensions may need to
understand expended form. Or we could look for a way where IG can guide
design of extension JSON-LD context which will allow people using them
to stay in blissful compacted form using something like:

  "@context": [


I will live to ISSUE-15 discussion about ActivityStreams not focusing on
*Activities* but trying to innovate with Object, Collection (+ paging)
etc. While we still
* don't provide much clarity on activity vs. *result* of activity IMO
relevant to 'Connect as Verb or Connection as Object?' thread
* don't specify clearly past/present/future ( elf plans to attend next
Social WG F2F, elf currently attends Social WG F2F, elf attended Social
WG F2F) Please also see Amy's personal website
(Todo, Doing, Done)

Once again, I see much more urgent issues to resolve in WG than dealing
with particular types of possible Activities or Things/Objects.

> if we want to be extensible i think we should eat our own dogfood and do
> what AS1 did: separate AS grammar and vocabulary, and treat the "base
> vocabulary" as an extension. not only would we validate our own
> extensibility model, we would also create a blueprint for those who want
> to create their own extensions.

> btw, for those interested in declarative extensibility: i just finished
> the ASDL experiment of converting the AS1 base schema into a structured
> list, and our general approach is to treat this no different than any
> other possible extension of the AS1 core. here's ASDL's current
> playground, but please keep in mind that this is all about AS1:

I would like to once again emphasis *URI* recommendation in IG charter

"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."

BTW I does NOT say anything about dereferencing those URIs ;)


> cheers,
> dret.

Received on Wednesday, 25 March 2015 10:20:15 UTC