Re: Open Github Issues

I don't see any reason for a new media type. Media types identify file
formats basically, which is orthogonal to what AS doing: creating yet
another RDF vocabulary to describe social graphs and document
hierarchies. If the serialization format is JSON-LD, then it can be
interpreted as both RDF and JSON, which is a bonus. But in general,
Linked Data applications should advertise which RDF serializations
they support, instead of creating or extending media types. By
extending the JSON media type, the interoperability would decrease.

Martynas

On Tue, Oct 20, 2015 at 12:58 AM, Melvin Carvalho
<melvincarvalho@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
> On 19 October 2015 at 21:37, James M Snell <jasnell@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> We have had a number of open github issues. I recommend closing the
>> following:
>>
>> #52 - "New media type or application/ld+json plus profile" -
>> https://github.com/jasnell/w3c-socialwg-activitystreams/issues/52
>>
>>   This one has been around for a while. There was a concern brought up
>> about the creation of the application/activity+json media type and
>> whether or not AS2 should use the application/ld+json media type with
>> a profile parameter. The concern is that use of the
>> application/activity+json media type could harm interoperability.
>>
>>   In my opinion, the concern is largely theoretical and is not backed
>> by real implementation experience. There is nothing to be gained by
>> switching to using the application/ld+json media type. Nor is there
>> anything "broken" about using the "application/activity+json".
>
>
> Thanks for bringing this up, James.
>
> Am I right to say that you would consider the two proposals of:
>
> 1 using the application/activity+json media type
> 2 using the the application/ld+json media type plus profile mechanism [1]
>
> largely equivalent?
>
> Or do you strongly favor one option over the other?  If so, I think it's
> important to understand why
>
> [1] http://www.w3.org/TR/json-ld/#iana-considerations (see Optional
> Parameters)
>
>>
>>
>> #157 - "Vocabulary item for "Blog" type" -
>> https://github.com/jasnell/w3c-socialwg-activitystreams/issues/157
>>
>>   In my opinion, this is unnecessary.
>>
>> #175 - "Should we have a type for the object of an "Offer" activity?
>> " - https://github.com/jasnell/w3c-socialwg-activitystreams/issues/175
>>
>>   In my opinion, this is unnecessary.
>>
>> #205 - "Object partOf Collection" -
>> https://github.com/jasnell/w3c-socialwg-activitystreams/issues/205
>>
>>   Question raised over whether we need a reverse property on objects
>> to indicate which collection(s) they are members of. In my opinion
>> this is unnecessary.
>>
>> #208 - "owl:Class vs. rdf:Property (for verbs and roles)" -
>> https://github.com/jasnell/w3c-socialwg-activitystreams/issues/208
>>
>>   Raises a concern over the fundamental design of verbs in AS2. This
>> requests revisiting a design decision that was made early within the
>> design of AS2 without presenting any new information. I see little
>> value in rehashing the prior conversation and selected design.
>>
>> - James
>>
>

Received on Monday, 19 October 2015 23:31:03 UTC