Re: Fwd: Proposal: drop instrument, participant and status

Elf, one critical aspect worth stressing is the fact that there are
activity streams implementers who have absolutely no desire to do anything
with the schema.org vocabulary. For those that want to use the two
together, there are simple ways of connecting the two and reconciling the
differences. However, ironing out all of differences and overlaps is not a
problem that's even the least bit interesting to me. There will be
overlaps, there will be inconsistencies, and those are perfectly
acceptable.
On Dec 21, 2014 4:38 AM, "☮ elf Pavlik ☮" <perpetual-tripper@wwelves.org>
wrote:

> I replied on github with matching occurrences in schemaorg examples.txt
> https://github.com/jasnell/w3c-socialwg-activitystreams/pull/59
>
> James also wrote some very nice examples on:
> https://www.w3.org/wiki/Activity_Streams/Expanded_Vocabulary
>
> He uses there as:target along as:object and as:participant. Schema.org
> uses schema:target for very different purpose. Possibly some of examples
> in my pending pull request could become even more straight forward if
> schema had something equivalent to as:target available!
> https://github.com/danbri/schemaorg/pull/15
>
> I would find it super helpful if everyone interested in
> actions/activities would get familiar with *both* Schema.org and
> Activity Streams examples, and then we could schedule one telecon in
> January to discuss various possibilities for improving their alignment.
>
> -------- Forwarded Message --------
> Subject: Proposal: drop instrument, participant and status
> Resent-Date: Fri, 19 Dec 2014 23:08:53 +0000
> Resent-From: public-socialweb@w3.org
> Date: Fri, 19 Dec 2014 15:08:05 -0800
> From: James M Snell <jasnell@gmail.com>
> To: public-socialweb@w3.org <public-socialweb@w3.org>
>
> https://github.com/jasnell/w3c-socialwg-activitystreams/pull/59
>
> - James
>
>
>
>