Re: social-ACTION-43: propose *lightweight* inference based on RDFa Vocabulary Expansion (also: ISSUE-12)

On 03/06/2015 02:26 PM, Erik Wilde wrote:
> hello elf.
Hi Erik,

> 
> On 2015-03-06 12:22, ☮ elf Pavlik ☮ wrote:
>> On 03/06/2015 12:10 PM, Social Web Working Group Issue Tracker wrote:
>>> social-ACTION-43: propose *lightweight* inference based on RDFa
>>> Vocabulary Expansion
>>> http://www.w3.org/Social/track/actions/43
>>> Assigned to: Pavlik elf
>>> On product: Activity Streams 2.0
>>> propose *lightweight* inference based on RDFa Vocabulary Expansion
>> associated it with ISSUE-12 Action Types Structure and Processing Model
>> https://www.w3.org/Social/track/issues/12
> 
> it would be great if you could explicitly address the following points:
I'll try, but please consider it all as still 'brainstorming'

> 
> - is using inference optional or mandatory?
We could look at possibly to have *Lite* and *Full* versions of AS2.0.
In Lite, one could ignore even this lightweight inference but would have
less robust construct at hand. Producer would also need to stay more
explicit if they want *exactly* the same interpretation by Lite consumers.

> 
> - what about core activities, such as saying that a "like" is a
> "respond". how does that work for producers and consumers?
Producer who care about same interpretation by *Lite* consumers would
need to assert "@type": ["Respond", "Like"]
If Producer accepts *slightly* different interpretation by Lite and Full
consumers. "@type": ["Like"] would only get interpreted as "@type":
["Respond", "Like"] by Full consumers, Lite would miss interred "@type":
["Respond"] - IMO reasonable consequence if someone doesn't want to
implement AS2.0 Full support.


> 
> - what about extension properties, such as saying that a "floop" is a
> "like". how does that work for producers and consumers?
Similar as above, the only difference comes with including details from
note core / 'external' vocabulary. Which I try to answer together with
next question.


> 
> - what are the inputs for the inference (i.e., is everything
> self-contained in activities, or do you need a "floop vocabulary" and if
> you do, what are the requirements for that), and what's the discovery
> model for them, if there are required resources beyond activities.
Inputs: AS2.0 object + vocabulary definitions of *used* terms

Discovery works by simply dereferencing http(s): URI of newly
encountered term (in practice often already cached). Depending on how we
decide on AS2.0 serializations, it MUST return application/ld+json
description of the term (or the whole vocab if # pattern used, as in
AS2.0 itself), it MAY return text/turtle and text/html (RDFa). Again we
should discuss Content Negotiation sooner than later.

I want to also explore Gregg's suggestions for possible
'self-containted' options in:
https://github.com/schemaorg/schemaorg/issues/284#issuecomment-71922136

Gregg, if you want to Respond to this message (or even just Like/+1)
please cc public-socialweb-comments@w3.org :)

> 
> thanks and cheers,
Thanks Erik and Cheers!



> 
> dret.
>