Re: The OWL file

Sorry, May you clarify your group?

Il 18 marzo 2025 10:27:09 CET, Melvin Carvalho <melvincarvalho@gmail.com> ha scritto:
>út 18. 3. 2025 v 10:04 odesílatel Aaron Gray <aaronngray@gmail.com> napsal:
>
>> OWL actually gives you very little real geneable code in the end only API
>> or semantic skeletons. I went down this route and it was not very fruitful
>> unfortunately.
>>
>> I did find what I presume to be an efficient N3 store with SPAQL querying
>> written in C++ from called QLever developed by DBLP.org's author. The code
>> is not very orthogonally structured though. But worth checking out for an
>> efficient N3 implementation.
>>
>Our group is actively working with ActivityPub and the OWL file to ensure
>100% standards compliance.
>
>OWL isn’t about generating code—it provides a definitive, machine-readable
>explanation of the Activity Streams vocabulary. While N3 isn’t strictly
>necessary for this, it can serve as an extension for rules and logic.
>
>We’d be happy to collaborate on this effort, provided it’s developed
>openly, as we need it for a fully standards-compliant, interoperable body
>of documentation.
>
>
>>
>> On Tue, 18 Mar 2025, 08:54 Melvin Carvalho, <melvincarvalho@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>
>>> út 18. 3. 2025 v 9:27 odesílatel Cristiano Longo <
>>> cristianolongo@opendatahacklab.org> napsal:
>>>
>>>> I'm going to look for any funding for this. Any suggestion about an
>>>> appropriate funding source and scheme will be appreciated. Also, proposals
>>>> for collaborations with other institutions are welcome.
>>>>
>>>
>>> I would recommend NLNet, they are very generous with funding:
>>>
>>> https://nlnet.nl/propose/
>>>
>>>
>>>> CL
>>>> On 04/10/24 10:11, Melvin Carvalho wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> pá 4. 10. 2024 v 10:03 odesílatel Cristiano Longo <
>>>> cristianolongo@opendatahacklab.org> napsal:
>>>>
>>>>> The OWL file have to be mantained and enriched, as reported in
>>>>> https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-swicg/2023Dec/0014.html
>>>>>
>>>>> I don't know if it is appropriate that the community group work on
>>>>> this.
>>>>> And, if so, I'm not sure if this should be mentioned in the document
>>>>> under discussion or it could emerge later as a work item.
>>>>>
>>>>> I'm sorry but I cannot attend the today meeting.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> It’s the machine-readable vocabulary for ActivityPub. Could we perhaps
>>>> just call it the *Schema*, *Vocab*, or *Ontology* for ActivityPub,
>>>> instead of "OWL"? OWL stands for Ontology Web Language, and that’s a bit
>>>> less intuitive for most folks.
>>>>
>>>> In the linked data world, a schema is essential, and it should be
>>>> referenced in the context. The context itself isn’t meant for
>>>> definitions—it’s more of an intermediary between the specific JSON format
>>>> (or "profile") and the schema.
>>>>
>>>> There was quite a bit of work done on the schema during the Working
>>>> Group, but at some point, the link to it seems to have been
>>>> broken—intentionally or not. I think it would be a valuable task to restore
>>>> that connection and make the ActivityPub schema fully compliant with W3C
>>>> standards again.
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> CL
>>>>>
>>>>> On 08/12/23 17:38, Evan Prodromou wrote:
>>>>> > The original development file for AS2 was an OWL file.
>>>>> >
>>>>> > I don't think it was ever edited after James Snell created the first
>>>>> > JSON-LD context file.
>>>>> >
>>>>> > But it's been in the Activity Streams 2.0 repository on GitHub since
>>>>> > it was created.
>>>>> >
>>>>> > We get occasional requests to make changes to it to bring it into
>>>>> line
>>>>> > with the JSON-LD context doc. Some LinkedData developers seem to
>>>>> > prefer using it.
>>>>> >
>>>>> > We had a new issue filed this week about it, and on the issue triage
>>>>> > call we came up with a novel solution: move the file to its own
>>>>> > repository in the SWICG namespace, and let people who are interested
>>>>> > in using and maintaining it work on the project.
>>>>> >
>>>>> > The new repository is here:
>>>>> >
>>>>> > https://github.com/swicg/activitystreams2-owl
>>>>> >
>>>>> > Big appreciation to Emelia Smith for getting the process rolling.
>>>>> > We've already had one PR applied.
>>>>> >
>>>>> > I had removed the file from the w3c/activitystreams repo, but Ben
>>>>> > Goering pointed out that it probably needed more consensus and a
>>>>> > discussion here.
>>>>> >
>>>>> > So, let's discuss!
>>>>> >
>>>>> > I'd love to see this unofficial file maintained and updated. I think
>>>>> > moving it to a repo where people in the LD community can maintain it
>>>>> > is a great solution.
>>>>> >
>>>>> > Evan
>>>>> >
>>>>> >
>>>>>
>>>>>