- From: Dan Brickley <danbri@danbri.org>
- Date: Tue, 14 May 2013 18:45:50 -0700
- To: James M Snell <jasnell@gmail.com>
- Cc: Dan Brickley <danbri@google.com>, Jim Klo <jim.klo@sri.com>, Yaar Schnitman <yaar@google.com>, Steve Macbeth <Steve.Macbeth@microsoft.com>, W3C Web Schemas Task Force <public-vocabs@w3.org>
On 14 May 2013 18:40, James M Snell <jasnell@gmail.com> wrote: > On Tue, May 14, 2013 at 6:28 PM, Dan Brickley <danbri@google.com> wrote: > [snip] >>> A few of us on the Learning Registry team have been considering harmonizing >>> our LR Paradata 1.0 spec (1) with Schema.org and the Actions proposal really >>> is a great step. The Paradata spec is an enhancement of ActivityStrea.ms (2) >>> primarily directed towards Educational Activities. >>[snip] > > Btw, FWIW, I am one of the editors for the activitystrea.ms specs.. I > know that there are a number of important differences between this > proposal and those specs and that the use cases for each are a bit > different, but I am certainly interested in making sure that there is > good alignment between this and what we've done in activitystrea.ms. Thanks! We still have some wiggle-room to bring things closer together. Our Actions draft is very much oriented towards fitting into the rest of the schema.org system but hopefully there are places where choices (like particular action/activity types) can be aligned with the work of the activitystrea.ms community. Maybe we could take a set of activitystrea.ms descriptions and check the extent to which they can be described via schema.org Actions? Dan
Received on Wednesday, 15 May 2013 01:46:16 UTC