Re: internationalization issues

Elf,

On 10/23/2015 04:49 AM, elf Pavlik wrote:
> 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!


People who send email use natural language :)


>
>
>> 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!

Again, due to a relatively simple spec error on the part of the JSON-LD
editors/Working Group, @context and any other attribute defined with a
'@' symbol are not processed out of the box as objects by most modern
programming languages. Thus, you have to give any JSON-LD defined '@'
symbol special processing. While there it is possible everyone will
start  using JSON-LD libraries, I expect many if not most developers
will not use JSON-LD libraries but will want to consume AS2.0 as JSON.
It's possible I'm wrong, but that's the feedback I've gotten from
Thoughtworks (whose IE application is still waiting) and others.

In other words, we need to keep JSON-LD to keep RDF interop, but realize
most people are not using RDF-based programming stacks. If AS2.0 is to
be a genuine interop layer, design needs to take that into account and
if JSON LD conventions are broken, c'est la vie.

       cheers,
            harry
>
>
>> 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 13:13:28 UTC