- From: Harry Halpin <hhalpin@w3.org>
- Date: Fri, 23 Oct 2015 22:42:00 -0400
- To: Melvin Carvalho <melvincarvalho@gmail.com>, James M Snell <jasnell@gmail.com>
- CC: Arnaud Le Hors <lehors@us.ibm.com>, "public-socialweb@w3.org" <public-socialweb@w3.org>
- Message-ID: <562AEFF8.5030503@w3.org>
On 10/23/2015 09:21 PM, Melvin Carvalho wrote:
>
>
> On 23 October 2015 at 19:19, James M Snell <jasnell@gmail.com
> <mailto:jasnell@gmail.com>> wrote:
>
> As far as I'm concerned, no need needs to wait on getting IE status
> approved to provide feedback. That's what github issues are for...
> that's why we're doing this development in the open in the first
> place. You do not need IE status or need to be a member of this WG to
> open issues on github. I would encourage ANYONE who is looking to
> implement who has specific concerns to raise those concerns now.
>
> https://github.com/jasnell/w3c-socialwg-activitystreams/issues
>
>
> +1 Arnaud
> +1 James
Although that being said, the error in JSON-LD of using the "@" symbol
rather than just reserved terms should have been obvious, and is more of
a meta-problem with binding not only AS2.0 but anything to JSON-LD.
Again, that WG is closed unfortunately.
However, as a point of process, my goal is to get large adoption, not to
try to use AS2.0 to push adoption of any other technology per se, be
that RDF or micro-formats, although bindings and dependencies where
sensible are to be encouraged. Nonetheless, it appears we have some
disagreement over where 'sensible' is.
cheers,
harry
>
> IMHO AS2.0 is the outstanding piece of work in this group to date. I
> dont think it's overly complex, and this is certainly not something I
> would call obvious. There is a difference between expressive and
> complex. Most of the fields in AS are optional, so systems can avoid
> complexity simply by not using the fields that are not applicable
>
> May I note that on top of the github issues, the group has a public
> mailing list that anyone can post to:
>
> public-socialweb-comments@w3.org <mailto:public-socialweb-comments@w3.org>
>
> Please allow stake holders and implementor to make their case, rather
> than, proxying either private or public opinions. You run too high a
> risk of quoting out of context, which is counter productive. Simply
> provide encourage people to engage the group, or provide pointers, as
> Sandro has been doing.
>
>
>
>
> - James
>
> On Fri, Oct 23, 2015 at 9:43 AM, Harry Halpin <hhalpin@w3.org
> <mailto:hhalpin@w3.org>> wrote:
> [snip]
> >
> > I believe a few implementers are going to ask for a large amount of
> > simplifying changes shortly. In particular, the implementers
> I've worked
> > with (Thoughtworks) have been waiting about a month to have
> their IE status
> > approved, so I'd prefer if they did the change requests directly
> rather than
> > have myself proxy.g
> >
> > cheers,
> > harry
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Cheers.
> > --
> > Arnaud Le Hors - Senior Technical Staff Member, Open Web
> Technologies - IBM
> > Software Group
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > From: Harry Halpin <hhalpin@w3.org <mailto:hhalpin@w3.org>>
> > To: James M Snell <jasnell@gmail.com
> <mailto:jasnell@gmail.com>>, "public-socialweb@w3.org
> <mailto:public-socialweb@w3.org>"
> > <public-socialweb@w3.org <mailto:public-socialweb@w3.org>>
> > Date: 10/22/2015 08:52 AM
> > Subject: Re: internationalization issues
> > ________________________________
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > On 10/22/2015 11:45 AM, James M Snell wrote:
> >> I'm still waiting for feedback on what parts of the AS2.0 spec are
> >> "obviously too complex". So far the feedback has been far too
> vague to
> >> be useful.
> >
> > 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.
> >
> > 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.
> >
> > And yes, evidence points to AS1.0 being a failure (as well as
> original
> > binding to Atom's XML format). While Atom/RSS had widespread
> adoption
> > amongst end developers, AS1.0, despite being deployed by large
> sites and
> > even Microsoft for a period of time, failed to gain much developer
> > mind-share. The situation is even trickier with AS2.0 because
> *unlike*
> > AS1.0, there's no large implementers (outside *maybe* IBM) really
> > interested, just the open-source community.
> >
> > cheers,
> > harry
> >>
> >> Given the details in the document Sandro forwarded, I'm
> retracting my
> >> proposal for removing the language map mechanism.
> >>
> >> - James
> >>
> >> On Thu, Oct 22, 2015 at 8:42 AM, Harry Halpin <hhalpin@w3.org
> <mailto:hhalpin@w3.org>> wrote:
> >>> Note I forwarded the removal of language tags to Richard
> Ishida from the
> >>> Internationalization Activity.
> >>>
> >>> The AS2.0 spec is obviously too complex. That being said, I'm
> not sure
> >>> if language tags though are the right thing to delete, I'm
> assuming our
> >>> Internationalization expert, Richard Ishida, will be back with us
> >>> shortly.
> >>>
> >>> On 10/22/2015 08:50 AM, Sandro Hawke wrote:
> >>>> There's finally a first draft of W3C expertise on how to design
> >>>> technologies which are suitably international
> >>>>
> >>>>
> http://www.w3.org/International/techniques/developing-specs-dynamic
> >>>>
> >>>> It would be splendid for someone to go through this thinking
> of AS2.
> >>>>
> >>>> -- Sandro
> >>>>
> >>>
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
Received on Saturday, 24 October 2015 02:42:07 UTC