Re: Why not AS2? was Re: Getting the group back on track

I would hope that maybe the vocabulary can just be aggressively culled.

I believe that it's a bad idea to try to specify all the kinds of
activities and relationships that people engage in and have.

But, I thought that at least the framing, the most abstract vocabulary
pieces, might find broad agreement.

I'm mostly just confused, maybe because I haven't been following closely
enough, about what, if anything, the group has consensus about wanting to
do (regardless of the specifics of implementation).

Because one could take an extreme position on this non-endorsement openness
and say, "Publishing and consuming content in a network is inherently
social. The Web is social. Nothing needs to be done."

On Sun, Oct 18, 2015, 12:53 Amy G <amy@rhiaro.co.uk> wrote:

> The design of the Social API doesn't need to rely on any particular
>> vocabulary. People will use whatever vocabulary they deem to be appropriate
>> to describe their own "social" data. The Social API will merely enable the
>> data to be passed. The challenge for the Social API is to lay down some
>> form of a common denominator of the social API-like things that's needed.
>
>  ...
>
>> . We are certainly not covering all aspects of the social web, neither
>> should we presume to or force it as such via a specific vocabulary.
>>
>
> +1
>
> I think AS2 as a SHOULD is more useful than leaving it completely open, to
> encourage people who have no existing preferences to converge on something,
> but we shouldn't be forcing that on people if it doesn't match the shape of
> the social data they want to pass around.
>