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: Fri, 27 Mar 2015 11:49:08 +0100
Message-ID: <551535A4.6030806@wwelves.org>
To: James M Snell <jasnell@gmail.com>, Henry Story <henry.story@bblfish.net>
CC: public-socialweb@w3.org
On 03/26/2015 03:28 PM, James M Snell wrote:
> Can we please keep the discussion on this thread related to the original
> subject? This meta-discussion is not helpful right now and can be moved to
> a separate thread. The original question is asking if we can remove certain
> specific items from the vocabulary that are not supported by the user
> stories.
I will create dedicated ISSUE based on my suggestion on this thread to
distinguish between JSON-LD @context we plan to recommend and
vocabularIES we use int it.


> On Mar 26, 2015 7:00 AM, "henry.story@bblfish.net" <henry.story@bblfish.net>
> wrote:
> 
>>
>>> On 25 Mar 2015, at 10:42, Erik Wilde <dret@berkeley.edu> wrote:
>>>
>>> hello elf.
>>>
>>> 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
>>>> https://www.w3.org/Social/track/issues/16
>>>
>>> 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.
>>>
>>> in my mind, AS1 had a better structure because the spec itself had a
>> very basic set (mostly the basic AS grammar) of verbs and object types and
>> properties, and then the base schema extended this in a separate spec.
>>>
>>> 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.
>>
>> That has already been done by choosing RDF in choosing JSON-LD.
>> The extensibility is already defined: it's RDF extensibility.
>>
>>
>>>
>>> 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:
>>>
>>> https://github.com/dret/ASDL/tree/master/0.1
>>>
>>> cheers,
>>>
>>> dret.
>>>
>>> --
>>> erik wilde | mailto:dret@berkeley.edu  -  tel:+1-510-2061079 |
>>>          | UC Berkeley  -  School of Information (ISchool) |
>>>          | http://dret.net/netdret http://twitter.com/dret |
>>>
>>
>> Social Web Architect
>> http://bblfish.net/
>>
>>
>>
> 



Received on Friday, 27 March 2015 10:49:36 UTC

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