Re: AS2 media type

On 10/20/2015 04:57 PM, James M Snell wrote:
> Let's also not forget that the Activity Streams 2.0 Core and Activity
> Vocabulary documents are two separate things. The former defines the
> JSON-LD derived serialization while the latter defines the vocabulary
> model. If an implementer so chooses, there is absolutely nothing in
> the Activity Vocabulary spec that requires use of the specific
> serialization defined in the AS 2.0 Core document. If an implementer
> so chooses, they can use the Activity Vocabulary inside "normal"
> JSON-LD and RDF applications using the `application/ld+json` media
> type and requiring full RDF style processing. Such documents would be
> valid uses of the Activity Vocabulary but would not be Activity
> Streams 2.0 Documents per se -- which is a perfectly valid and ok
> thing to do -- just like how using the Activity Vocabulary in RDFa or
> Microdata is a perfectly valid and ok thing to do but we wouldn't call
> HTML that includes Activity Vocabulary data and Activity Streams 2.0
> Document either.
Thank you for reminder James, since Social API spec very unlikely will
make AS2.0 (application/activity+json) a MUST, and more likely a SHOULD
or even just MAY, possibly we actually put way too much importance on
trying to agree on all those things...


> 
> On Tue, Oct 20, 2015 at 6:52 AM, James M Snell <jasnell@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Elf,
>>
>> I've answered your questions about Curie expansion already. I'm not going to
>> answer them again.
>>
>> Your concerns about as:Link have been brought up previously, discussed, and
>> the group decided to keep the current model. I will not be revisiting that
>> discussion.
>>
>> The discussion over requiring the compact form happened over a year ago. I
>> will not be revisiting that discussion either.
>>
>> The conversation happening right now is about the media type.
>>
>> - James
>>
>> On Oct 20, 2015 3:33 AM, "elf Pavlik" <perpetual-tripper@wwelves.org> wrote:
>>>
>>> Hi James,
>>>
>>> On 10/20/2015 12:00 AM, James M Snell wrote:
>>>> On Mon, Oct 19, 2015 at 2:45 PM, Sarven Capadisli <info@csarven.ca>
>>>> wrote:
>>>> [snip]
>>>>>
>>>>> What breaks when you reuse the existing media types?
>>>>>
>>>>> How are the existing media types insufficient to AS2's needs?
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Among other things, AS2 requires:
>>>>   (a) the use of a normative @context definition;
>>> This requires *all* clients to have 'hard coded' knowledge about
>>> existence and location of that normative context. Non AS2 specific
>>> clients will not have possibility to find it, which will limit audience
>>> of data published this way. IMO using profile parameter seems to work
>>> for all clients, those who know about AS2.0 specific processing and
>>> those which will do their best by interpreting i as JSON-LD
>>>
>>>
>>>>   (b) the use of JSON-LD compact form;
>>> IMO this can cause more interoperability problems than benefits! If
>>> people don't expand URIs in their code before matching them, this will
>>> break the whole extensibility. Property with compacted name 'ex:foo'
>>> from one source, doesn't equal property with the same compacted name
>>> 'ex:foo' from another source. One still need to expand them to full URIs
>>> based on mappings in ... JSON-LD context.
>>>
>>>>   (c) that all date/time values use ISO8601 format
>>> https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc7493#section-4.3
>>>
>>>>   (d) that the AS1 "objectType" and "id" values MUST NOT be used.
>>> only relevant to people who migrate from AS1 (anyone even works on it?),
>>> nothing to do with people starting from AS2
>>>
>>>>   (e) the implementations MUST treat all objects as derivatives of
>>>> as:Object unless the the object uses @type:as:Link
>>> IMO we still have some work to do with all the issues around as:Link ,
>>> actually it seems more relevant to API than *modeling social information*
>>>
>>>
>>>>   (f) that AS defined terms be preferred over overlapping terms from
>>>> other vocabularies
>>> overlapping? how come? all AS terms have *unique* URIs to identify them,
>>> no overlap possible... unless we try to make ourselves believe that we
>>> can have extensibility without expending to full URIs -1
>>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>> Using "application/ld+json" does not communicate to a receiver any of
>>>> these additional constraints.
>>>>
>>>> Which means in order to communicate these additional constraints, a
>>>> profile parameter would need to be used, in which case you've
>>>> accomplished nothing more than you would by simply defining a new
>>>> media type.
>>> Again, non AS2.0 specific clients will not have a way to process data,
>>> even that 'behind masquerade' it uses JSON-LD which they could process
>>> easily.
>>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>> - James
>>>
>>> I apologies if I sound impatient in this email, I just have impression
>>> that after a year of working on it 'kind of together' we keep walking in
>>> circles :(
>>>
>>> Cheers!
>>>
>>

Received on Tuesday, 20 October 2015 15:19:33 UTC