Re: internationalization issues

On 10/22/2015 06:03 PM, James M Snell wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 22, 2015 at 8:51 AM, Harry Halpin <hhalpin@w3.org> wrote:
> [snip]
>> I'll try to get to this next week, but my high-level feedback is likely
>> for AS2.0 to be successful everything outside the basic actor-verb model
>> and the kinds of metadata in Winer's RSS specs/Atom should be removed
>> and put back in Activity Vocabulary.
Harry, can you please reply with a short snippet of AS2.0 JSON data
which uses at least one term defined in microformats.org vocabulary?

I believe that you feel comfortable with backing you proposal with
simple 5 lines of plain JSON which I see you keep promising to people!


>>
> 
> This makes no sense given that all of the properties are ALREADY
> defined in the Activity Vocabulary. The Core spec deals only with the
> serialization and relies on the Vocabulary document to define the
> actual terms.
> 
>> I also am still strongly against the Activity Vocabulary being a
>> normative Recommendation, as it will lead to endless bikeshedding and
>> its a Sisyphean task to describe all social interactions using a single
>> vocabulary, and the vocabulary should align where possible with
>> IETF/microformats specs down to the 'string' level.
>> [snip]
> 
> The Vocabulary does not attempt to define all social interactions,
> just a handful of those that we know are already relevant to a good
> number of existing social systems. If there are suggestions for
> removing specific terms, then I'm all for looking at those.
> 
> As for bike shedding, if the minimal set of terms defined in the
> vocabulary document are not to any specific implementers liking, there
> is a well defined extensibility mechanism that allows developers to
> use terms from other vocabularies quite easily. Implementing support
> for such extensions is fairly trivial (e.g.
> https://github.com/jasnell/as2-schema)
Does this well defined mechanism still work if implementation chooses to
ignore JSON-LD context? I keep hearing from Harry about intentions for
such practice becoming common and I would like to verify that we don't
contradict ourselves here!


> 
> At this point in the process, it would be far more productive to focus
> on implementation and fixing the specific parts of the spec that make
> implementation difficult, etc.
> 
> - James
>

Received on Friday, 23 October 2015 08:49:39 UTC