Re: Can ActivityPub be used for W3C Annotations?

Yes, it is clear that since W3C Annotations can be encoded as JSON-LD, they
should be valid extensions, however, I'm wondering if there is something
about Annotations that has caused them to be ignored or overlooked by the
ActivityStreams community. The fact that Annotations was released by W3C
before AcivityStreams/Pub were released makes me curious to know if there
is some reason for this. What's the history?

Annotations provide a general framework for making "statements about
another object," or meta-statements. The Activity Vocabulary includes
several such meta-statements. These include. at least: Dislike, Flag, Like,
and Reject. There is also the inReplyTo property. It seems to me that all
of these could have been expressed as Annotations in a simpler Activity
Vocabulary. Was an explicit decision made to not do this, or was there some
explicit reason for not leveraging Annotations?

bob wyman



On Tue, Feb 28, 2023 at 5:57 PM Abdullah Tarawneh <a@trwnh.com> wrote:

> Seems reasonable, yes. The way to do extensions in ActivityStreams is
> generally to use other contexts and vocabularies with JSON-LD. However,
> note that "plain JSON", "ActivityStreams native" parsers will ignore
> anything that they don't understand. see as2-core section 5,
> "extensibility": https://www.w3.org/TR/activitystreams-core/#extensibility
>
>>