Re: Activity Streams and Payments

Yes, that is the right direction.

The data structure of "Promise Language" has sufficient granularity to
describe any transaction, contract, unilateral agreement, and multilateral
agreement.  So, if that language is standardized in the database, a 'roll
up' description for dashboards becomes an algorithm written for a specific
application.

On Tue, Aug 13, 2019 at 3:22 PM Melvin Carvalho <melvincarvalho@gmail.com>
wrote:

> Nice thoughts.  I would be tempted to reuse some of the fields in good
> relations for what I understand from that spreadsheet (though I may have
> misunderstood).  This is because there is an eco system around GR and some
> tooling that fits into my current tools too.
>
> Having thought about this more
>
> I think there could be a relatively simple upgrade path for Activity
> Streams to add payments.  Simply to add a payment predicate to the Activity
> object.
>
> "Alice created a note, and wasy paid for it"
>
> I've made a proposal here, hopefully it is the right repo
>
> https://github.com/w3c/activitystreams/issues/503
>
> I can implement a proof of concept of this, probably today
>
> On Tue, 13 Aug 2019 at 05:35, Andrew Bransford Brown <andrewbb@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> This is based on contract law:
>>
>> http://promiselanguage.blogspot.com/2016/07/contract-scripting-language-csl-example.html
>>
>> Also, see attached image.
>>
>> On Tue, Aug 13, 2019 at 3:07 AM Melvin Carvalho <melvincarvalho@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Hi All
>>>
>>> I was wondering if anyone on this list was interested in Activity
>>> Streams?
>>>
>>> I have a need to create a dashboard.  And it would have two kinds of
>>> entries.
>>>
>>> 1. *Activity* : Alice received a Payment
>>> 2. *Activity* : Alice sent a Payment
>>>
>>> https://www.w3.org/TR/activitystreams-vocabulary/
>>>
>>> The activity vocab seems to have terms for Alice (actor) and Object
>>> (which covers Payment).
>>>
>>> However what is missing is sent and received.
>>>
>>> What would be the best way to achieve this?
>>>
>>> Create a new vocab, reuse something existing, or try to get the terms
>>> upstream in a future version?
>>>
>>