Re: The OWL file

On 15/12/23 16:57, Cristiano Longo wrote:
>
>
> On 15/12/23 16:31, Aaron Gray wrote:
>> On Fri, 15 Dec 2023 at 09:38, Cristiano Longo 
>> <cristianolongo@opendatahacklab.org> wrote:
>>
>>     To be honest, I'm just an old Semantic Web developer (do you
>>     remember
>>     the Semantic Web) and my primary source of specifications are
>>     RDFS and
>>     OWL vocabularies, regardless of the serialization used to provide
>>     them.
>>     Activity streams and activity pub aren't strictly linked data
>>     matters as
>>     they don't cope with general linked data formats and
>>     applications, they
>>     are just applications of linked data tecnologies.
>>
>>
>> Even though there is a @Context header,
> As for specifications, JSON-LD 1.1 (is) a JSON-based format to 
> serialize Linked Data. These linked data may be OWL or not. And, 
> JSON-LD documents may contain a @context. If I understood your question.
Sorry, if you mean the json-ld document available at 
https://www.w3.org/ns/activitystreams, it is just an empty JSON-LD document.
>> or header array block ?
> I cant' understand this.
>>
>> Aaron
>>
>>
>>     apologize for my English,
>>
>>     CL
>>
>>     On 08/12/23 22:23, Sarven Capadisli wrote:
>>     > On 2023-12-08 20:53, nightpool wrote:
>>     >> The OWL file is a nice open source project to have for those
>>     who prefer
>>     >> machine readable ontologies but it's absolutely not a "work
>>     item" of our
>>     >> group and has never been one.
>>     >
>>     > Would this from https://www.w3.org/groups/cg/socialcg/ suffice:
>>     >
>>     > >It is also a place to incubate new proposals which build on or
>>     > complement the Social Web WG recommendations.
>>     >
>>     > If not, please refer me to charter/process/agreement... a decision
>>     > policy of any sort that justifies what belongs to the SWCG and
>>     not,
>>     > and how you're going at having any sense of group consensus.
>>     >
>>     > See also:
>>     >
>>     https://github.com/w3c/activitystreams/issues/516#issuecomment-1847830548
>>     >
>>     >> The idea that it needs to be under the
>>     >> purview of a W3 Group or no-one will contribute to it seems
>>     specious to
>>     >> me—if people find it useful, they'll contribute to it, just
>>     like any
>>     >> other
>>     >> open source project.
>>     >
>>     > The argument is not that a W3C Group is the only place to
>>     contribute
>>     > to it. In the same way no one argues that SWCG is the only
>>     place to
>>     > work on "social web" stuff.
>>     >
>>     > The point is that the SWCG is the most suitable place to move
>>     the work
>>     > forward, and it is certainly not something appearing out of
>>     thing air
>>     > or out of scope.
>>     >
>>     > But if I'm mistaken, then I suggest we update the CG's
>>     description /
>>     > goals, charter, decision policy, or whatever that make all this
>>     > crystal clear instead of handwaving what belongs here and what not.
>>     >
>>     > Here is a lazy search for "owl" just in the w3c/activitystreams
>>     repo:
>>     >
>>     >
>>     https://github.com/search?q=repo%3Aw3c%2Factivitystreams%20owl&type=code
>>     <https://github.com/search?q=repo%3Aw3c%2Factivitystreams%20owl&type=code>
>>     >
>>     > * 4 codes
>>     > * 35 issues (including open and closed)
>>     > * 8 PRs (including open and closed)
>>     >
>>     > If people came forward / invested their time, it is probably good
>>     > enough signal that there is interest to be a "work item".
>>     Again, if
>>     > you don't like that word, feel free to pick something else, but
>>     then
>>     > I'm going to ask for something more concrete on what constitutes
>>     > "work" in this CG and what not, or can qualify as something that
>>     > people can work on re scope. What's being asked is not some random
>>     > technology that touches on "social web" stuff to be taken up
>>     here but
>>     > quite literally something that's already well-acknowledged by
>>     existing
>>     > material.
>>     >
>>     > So, back to the core discussion. Leave the RDF/OWL file in
>>     > w3c/activitystreams alone because it is closest to related
>>     material
>>     > and it is the simplest path to discovery and getting contributions.
>>     >
>>     > -Sarven
>>     > https://csarven.ca/#i
>>     >
>>
>>
>>
>> -- 
>> Aaron Gray - @AaronNGray@fosstodon.org
>>
>> Independent Open Source Software Engineer, Computer Language 
>> Researcher, Information Theorist, and Computer Scientist.
>>