- From: Karen Coyle <kcoyle@kcoyle.net>
- Date: Wed, 22 May 2013 11:10:39 -0700
- To: public-vocabs@w3.org
Unfortunately, schema.org already has a defined property "actor" for movies. It cannot be re-used with a different meaning - even though the meanings may have some overlap. I also find it interesting that schema.org already has a number of implied activities, but as nouns, and others as verb-ish phrases. schema.org/Movie has "director" and "musicBy", where one might expect "composer". So it goes. kc On 5/22/13 9:21 AM, James M Snell wrote: > Ok, so I've been going through the current Activity Proposal [1] and > have a few thoughts... (fyi... I'm posting this to both the schema.org > and activity streams mailing lists) > > [1] http://www.w3.org/wiki/images/3/38/ActionsinSchema.org2013-05-11.pdf > > The proposal largely consists of two distinct concepts: > > 1. Actions -- A semantic definition of potential activities > 2. Activities -- A semantic definition of an action that has been carried out. > > These are intended to serve four distinct use cases: > > 1. Identifying the semantic purpose of web forms > 2. Attaching "actional data" to semantic objects > 3. Activity confirmation and activity logs > 4. Delegation of action execution to other applications. > > These, obviously, are all very good use cases and it is great seeing > these being addressed. > > First, let's consider the existing Activity Streams spec > (http://activitystrea.ms) > > The existing Activity Streams specification is currently targeted only > at use case #3. It provides a simple, extensible JSON format for > describing actions that have been carried out. > > The Activity Streams JSON format is intentionally general and > non-specific, opting to provide a minimum of simple, basic properties > and clear extension points so that implementations can at least > perform a minimum level of handling and UI rendering even if it does > not understand the semantics of any specific activity. The format is > not perfect, but it's functional. > > Secondary to the core Activity Streams JSON spec, there is an Activity > Streams Schema specification that defines a core collection of verbs, > object types and extension properties. These cover a broad range of > existing real world use cases and clearly demonstrate how the generic > json model can be extended to provide domain specific information. > > What is missing from Activity Streams currently, however, is a deep, > rich semantic data model. In order to partially fill that gap, I > introduced a model for blending Activity Streams with external > vocabulary mechanisms like OData, Schema.org and others. Again, this > mechanism is not perfect, but it's functional. > > The new proposal for introducing Actions to Schema.org proposes a > mostly identical JSON model with a few key differences... > > 1. Instead of "verb", it uses "@type" > 2. Instead of "actor", it uses "performedBy" > 3. Instead of "object", it uses domain specific "extension" properties > associated with the verb/@type > 4. It omits the general "target" concept entirely > 5. It adds additional common properties that are not currently part of > the core Activity Streams model or that are defined as extensions > (e.g. within the schema spec) > > Some of these differences make sense, some do not... > > What I would like to do is make a proposal: > > First, we can work on a new 2.0 revision of the JSON Activity Streams > specification that defines the core syntax around a JSON-LD > *compatible* model. This model would be very similar to the existing > 1.0 syntax but would have a number of important deltas that I can > enumerate later on. The main point, however, is that the syntax would > be compatible with the approach the schema.org activity proposal wants > to take. > > Second, the schema.org activity proposal would adopt this updated spec > as it's base as opposed to defining it's own distinct model. That > would mean using "actor" instead of "performedBy" and working with the > Activity Streams Work Group to define and review any necessary basic > format extensions (as opposed to domain-specific stuff which belongs > in schema.org or other places). > > The end result would be an updated base Activity Streams model that is > close to the original providing a clear and simple upgrade path for > those who have invested in the current JSON Activity Streams model > while also allowing the new use cases to be met. > > Seem like a reasonable approach? I can have an updated first draft > ready to go in about a week. > > -- Karen Coyle kcoyle@kcoyle.net http://kcoyle.net ph: 1-510-540-7596 m: 1-510-435-8234 skype: kcoylenet
Received on Wednesday, 22 May 2013 18:11:13 UTC