Re: social-ISSUE-45 (mf2jsonldconflicts): Conflicts between json-ld and mf2 examples [Activity Streams 2.0]

Indeed, which is why arbitrarily changing it such as 'responses' to 'inbox'
is questionable.
It was started by surveying existing social networks' names for fields; if
there are still widespread adoptors we should review them for actual usage
of terms, and prune to disused ones.

On Tue, Aug 11, 2015 at 2:11 AM, Melvin Carvalho <melvincarvalho@gmail.com>
wrote:

>
>
> On 10 August 2015 at 22:34, Amy G <amy@rhiaro.co.uk> wrote:
>
>> I read this as, for each part of AS2 represented by an example, can we
>> point to use cases from our own user stories and/or examples in the wild?
>>
>> *> A) Can AS2 be improved to better represent pragmatic social web
>> publishing and consuming experience?*
>>
>> If not, perhaps this part of AS2 is extraneous.
>>
>> *> B) Are there real world use-cases implied by AS2 features that need
>> documentation as input for proposing new microformats2 properties (or
>> possibly objects)*
>>
>> If yes, let us document this so that other communities (one of which
>> being mf2) may benefit, and the motivations driving the parts of AS2 become
>> clearer.
>>
>> Doing this sounds like a lot of work, but valuable for strengthening AS2.
>> I suspect it would be duplication of a lot of the earlier work done to
>> create AS2 in the first place, so if anyone can point to documentation of
>> that process, or any early thinking, discussions, brainstorming etc, it
>> would really help. For those involved with AS1 and AS2, probably the
>> contents of AS2 seem logical and obvious, but until this is clearly
>> documented I can see the same questions/conversations happening over and
>> over as new people and ideas arrive.
>>
>
> Thanks for the clarification.  The AS format evolved over a number of
> years iteratively.  Some have adopted it, and others have adopted and
> dropped it.  During the Social Web XG facebook did say they were
> considering its adoption.  For more background this may help.
>
> https://groups.google.com/forum/#!forum/activity-streams
>
> "The Activity Streams format has already been adopted by BBC, Gnip
> <http://blog.gnip.com/activity-streams/>, Google Buzz
> <http://code.google.com/apis/buzz/> Gowalla
> <http://www.readwriteweb.com/archives/gowalla_adds_real-time_feeds_and_activity_streams.php>
> , IBM <http://www.ibm.com/>, MySpace
> <http://wiki.developer.myspace.com/index.php?title=Standards_for_Activity_Streams>
> , Opera <http://dev.opera.com/libraries/activitystream/>, Socialcast
> <http://socialcast.com/>, Superfeedr
> <http://blog.superfeedr.com/activity/pubsubhubbub/streams/activity-streams/>
> , TypePad <https://wiki.activitystrea.ms/TypePad-Activity-Streams>, Windows
> Live
> <http://windowsteamblog.com/windows_live/b/developer/archive/2010/06/28/social-distribution.aspx>
> , YIID <http://yiid.com/>, and many others
> <http://wiki.activitystrea.ms/Implementors>."
>
> http://wiki.activitystrea.ms/w/page/24500522/Implementors
>
>
>
>>
>> Amy
>>
>> On 10 August 2015 at 20:40, Melvin Carvalho <melvincarvalho@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On 10 August 2015 at 20:37, Social Web Working Group Issue Tracker <
>>> sysbot+tracker@w3.org> wrote:
>>>
>>>> social-ISSUE-45 (mf2jsonldconflicts): Conflicts between json-ld and mf2
>>>> examples [Activity Streams 2.0]
>>>>
>>>> http://www.w3.org/Social/track/issues/45
>>>>
>>>> Raised by: Benjamin Roberts
>>>> On product: Activity Streams 2.0
>>>>
>>>> As was mentioned by https://www.w3.org/Social/track/issues/44 there is
>>>> a disparity between several examples in AS2 between JSON-LD and MF2.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Thanks for pointing this out.
>>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>> Examples should be reviewed on a case-by-case basis considering
>>>> A) Can AS2 be improved to better represent pragmatic social web
>>>> publishing and consuming experience?
>>>> B) Are there real world use-cases implied by AS2 features that need
>>>> documentation as input for proposing new microformats2 properties (or
>>>> possibly objects)
>>>> C) A combination of both A and B
>>>>
>>>
>>> This issue seems a little vague.
>>>
>>> Additionally, I am unsure I understand the implications of (B)
>>> "proposing new microformats2 properties".
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>