Re: dfn-ojbect

"object" in an activity is the direct object. For instance, in the
sentence, "John created the note", the "object" is the note.
On Nov 8, 2015 6:37 AM, "Melvin Carvalho" <melvincarvalho@gmail.com> wrote:

>
>
> On 8 November 2015 at 02:26, James M Snell <jasnell@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Nope. Just an editing error. They're two different things
>>
> I've been looking at the friend request example and seeing how we would do
> that in Solid:
>
> EXAMPLE 328
> {
>   "@context": [
>     "http://www.w3.org/ns/activitystreams",
>     {"colleagueOf": "http://purl.org/vocab/relationship/colleagueOf"}
>   ],
>   "@id": "http://example.org/connection-requests/123",
>   "@type": "Offer",
>   "actor": "acct:sally@example.org",
>   "object": {
>     "@id": "http://example.org/connections/123",
>     "@type": "Relationship",
>     "subject": "acct:sally@example.org",
>     "relationship": "colleagueOf",
>     "object": "acct:john@example.org"
>   },
>   "target": "acct:john@example.org"
> }
>
>
> I found the naming of Object/object/target slightly confusing in this
> example.
>
> Object has a number of meanings:
>
> 1. The Object is the parent class of the activity
> 2. The object is the "object" of an activity ie what is being done
> 3. The object is the "object" of the relationship, ie the "target"
> 4. Object is also an rdf : object as per subject/predicate/object as
> mentioned in reification
>
> I suppose at this point in time it's much too late to change.
>
> But just to try and understand the sense.
>
> Would the "object" in an activity roughly correspond to the term
> "activity" ie what is the activity of this message?
>
>
>
>> On Nov 7, 2015 5:04 PM, "Melvin Carvalho" <melvincarvalho@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Reading through the AS spec I come across two terms:
>>>
>>> Object
>>> object
>>>
>>> One with capital and one with small.
>>>
>>> http://www.w3.org/TR/activitystreams-vocabulary/#dfn-object
>>>
>>> If I've understood correctly they are slightly different things, but yet
>>> they point to the same URI in the spec.  Is this intentional?
>>>
>>
>