Re: action status type

On Nov 2, 2014 9:48 AM, "Peter F. Patel-Schneider" <>
> I don't see how to understand this document without having access to the
Activity Streams 2.0 Core document.  After quite a bit of work, I found
what appears to be an editors' draft of that document at

That's because the documents are not complete. The actions document is
still just an editor's draft and still needs additional detail documented.
The activity streams 2.0 core document has been published as a FPWD.

> One very strange aspect of these documents is that they appear to be
trying to create a formal model for activities.  However, they use quite a
variety of semi-formal concepts for this purpose.  Why not just use a
formal modelling system for this purpose?  You wouldn't have to use RDF or
OWL if these systems are in a great disfavour in the working group.

How is that strange? Especially given that defining a model for activities
is precisely what the activity streams document does ;-). So far, a formal
modeling system has not been necessary but some steps have been taken in
that direction.

- James

Received on Sunday, 2 November 2014 18:17:03 UTC