Re: schema.org action status type

Much of that is due to purposeful lack of a strong semantic definition in
the original Activity Streams 1.0 spec. For 2.0, this kind of feedback is
helpful, however. If you'd be so inclined, some additional notes on what
information and definition may still be required would be helpful (some of
us working on it are so intimately familiar with the spec that it's often
difficult to take that kind of neutral objective view)

- James

On Sun Nov 02 2014 at 11:26:51 AM Peter F. Patel-Schneider <
pfpschneider@gmail.com> wrote:

>
>
> On 11/02/2014 10:16 AM, James M Snell wrote:
> >
> > On Nov 2, 2014 9:48 AM, "Peter F. Patel-Schneider" <
> pfpschneider@gmail.com
> > <mailto:pfpschneider@gmail.com>> wrote:
> >  >
> [...]
> >
> >  > 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.
>
> Well the strangeness is that it is very hard to figure out just what is
> supposed to be going on because the foundations are underdefined.
>
> > - James
>
> peter
>
>