Re: Open Github Issues

Why not put some constraints on the data? And make them dereferenceable?
There's a spec for that: https://w3c.github.io/data-shapes/shacl/

On Tue, Oct 20, 2015 at 1:39 AM, James M Snell <jasnell@gmail.com> wrote:
> By way of example: The following is a valid expanded form JSON-LD
> document that uses the AS 2.0 vocabulary. It can be served using the
> `application/ld+json` media type. It is NOT, however, a valid AS 2.0
> document.
>
> ```
> [
>   {
>     "@type": [
>       "http://www.w3.org/ns/activitystreams#Create"
>     ],
>     "http://www.w3.org/ns/activitystreams#actor": [
>       {
>         "@id": "acct:sally@example.org",
>         "@type": [
>           "http://www.w3.org/ns/activitystreams#Person"
>         ],
>         "http://www.w3.org/ns/activitystreams#displayName": [
>           {
>             "@value": "Sally"
>           }
>         ]
>       }
>     ],
>     "http://www.w3.org/ns/activitystreams#object": [
>       {
>         "@type": [
>           "http://www.w3.org/ns/activitystreams#Note"
>         ],
>         "http://www.w3.org/ns/activitystreams#content": [
>           {
>             "@value": "This is a simple note"
>           }
>         ]
>       }
>     ],
>     "http://www.w3.org/ns/activitystreams#published": [
>       {
>         "@type": "http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema#dateTime",
>         "@value": "2015-01-25T12:34:56Z"
>       }
>     ]
>   }
> ]
> ```
>
> The following is also a valid JSON-LD document that can be served
> using the `application/ld+json` media type. It also uses the AS 2.0
> vocabulary but it is also not a valid AS 2.0 document:
>
> ```
> {
>   "@context": ["http://www.w3.org/ns/activitystreams", {
>     "foo": "as:displayName",
>     "bar": "as:content",
>     "baz": "@id",
>     "fuz": "@type"
>   }],
>   "@type": "Create",
>   "actor": {
>     "fuz": "Person",
>     "baz": "acct:sally@example.org",
>     "foo": "Sally"
>   },
>   "object": {
>     "fuz": "Note",
>     "bar": "This is a simple note"
>   },
>   "published": "2015-01-25T12:34:56Z"
> }
> ```
>
> In fact, both of the above examples are valid JSON-LD serializations
> of exactly the same data, which you can only know if you apply the
> JSON-LD processing APIs.
>
> A key part of the reason AS 2.0 requires a normative JSON-LD context
> and compact serialization is to normalize the data format and make it
> possible for implementers to choose not to apply full JSON-LD
> processing and still be able to make reasonable sense of the data.
>
> - James
>
> On Mon, Oct 19, 2015 at 4:30 PM, Martynas Jusevičius
> <martynas@graphity.org> wrote:
>> 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 23:42:40 UTC