Re: The OWL file

On 2/23/26 15:26, Aaron Gray wrote:
> Christiano,
>
> Oh thanks for using a closed publication journal that's the last thing 
> both the W3C and the open source movement need right now.
You are perfectly right, but right now I can't afford an open-access 
publication as it is just too expensive for me.
>
> I looked into this area myself but the semantics involved to describe 
> the internal state verses ActivityPub communications was still 
> indeterminate at the time due to all the incontinuity errors in 
> ActivityPub and ActivityStreams.
The intent of this work is about clarifying specifications, and not 
intended for run-time uses.
>
> The work I prompted in closing the GitHub issues for both protocols 
> mainly performed by Evan goes someway to addressing this, but there 
> are also proprietorial issues as we do not reflect both the additional 
> protocol additions and incompatibilities introduced by the main 
> implementation of the protocols, Mastodon.
>
> I am not sure how useful formalizing the ontology if ActivityStreams 
> will actually be in terms of using it with an N3 database or for code 
> generation. N3 is hugely inefficient, and code generation is not 
> necessarily going to be optimal.
>
> You can probably get a class structure out of the ontology but again I 
> don't know how useful that will actually be without additional bespoke 
> event logic.
>
> If I had access to the Sage publication it would be useful but I am 
> not in an academic organisation.
>
> Sorry for the rather negative email, but I tend to prefer to say 
> things as they really are and not beat around the bush. I know I don't 
> win any friends this way, but reality is what reality is.
Thanks for you feedback.
>
> Regards,

Received on Monday, 23 February 2026 19:03:07 UTC