Re: Need for W3C 'living' vocabulary & possibility of forking

Hi Melvin,

On 04/28/2015 09:12 PM, Melvin Carvalho wrote:
> On 28 April 2015 at 18:11, ☮ elf Pavlik ☮ <>
> wrote:
>> Hello,
>> Next week Social WG will gather in Paris for 3rd face to face
>> meeting[1]. I proposed for the agenda topic of maintaining a 'living'
>> vocabulary, already placing myself an image of xkcd:Standards (927)[2]
>> next to it.
>> I already made multiple attempts to clarify situation of depending on
>> in W3C specs. To my understanding, as for today situation
>> looks as follows:
>>  - W3C does NOT approve dependency on
>>  + W3C does approve dependency on
> Could you explain in more detail why a dependency of is needed
> or desirable?

Please take a look at JSON-LD context which will accompany Core spec and
Vocabulary spec

AS 2.0 core spec will make this context normative and require publishing
JSON-LD in *compacted* form using this context during compacting. AFAIK
W3C has no past experience in publishing normative JSON-LD contexts, so
it seems that we deal with a new situation here.

To my understanding, currently we can't for example use in this
normative context alias
"Give": ""

so we currently end up with AS2.0 Vocabulary draft defining

at the same time current draft of AS2.0 extended vocab doesn't define
*Take*, so many people might in practice end up using by extending normative JSON-LD context
themselves with something like

"Take": ""
or just
"schema": ""
and use "schema:TakeAction" etc.

here again we can run into collision of
both having Action/Activity in range(Includes) but used very different
purpose :S

relevant issues open in Social WG
ISSUE-16: better separate grammar/vocabulary and improved spec structure
ISSUE-36: Role and evolution of recommended JSON-LD contexts

We can discuss it in more depth next Tuesday, having it on agenda of our
face 2 face meeting in Paris


Received on Thursday, 30 April 2015 11:47:27 UTC