I believe we can leave it up to the specific context in which it's
being used. The "challenges" and "participants" properties are an open
question as to whether they would be generally useful or whether we
should just define the "game" object type and leave it at that for
>> "rank" -- represents a ranking e.g. (first out of ten, etc)
>> - rank (the rank)
>> - total (the total number of items in the set)
>> - of (optional... the object being ranked)
>> - domain (object describing the domain of the ranking)
> I think I need an example of this one to understand how it's used. I get the
> general idea of a rank out of N but I'm not sure how this is different than
> the "rating" property we defined on review, and what sorts of things you'd
> expect to see in "of" and "domain".
For example, consider the statement "James won first place out of
twelve in the race" ... this would be represented as:
"displayName": "The Big Race"
The "of" property is likely misnamed... it is intended to identify the
thing that has been ranked. For instance, consider the statement, "The
committee posted a new consumer satisfaction ranking for the product"
"displayName": "The Committee"
"displayName": "My Great Product"
"displayName": "Consumer Satisfaction Survey",
>> "application" -- represents a software application
>> (no specific properties)
> Is a computer game a game or is it an application? Or is it both depending
> on context.
> For example:
> * I played Doom
> * I won Doom
> * I added Doom to my Facebook account.
Both, depending on context. Consider... "I installed 'Draw Something'
on my phone" and "I played 'Draw Something'"
>> "book" -- represents a book object
>> - edition (string)
>> - publisher (object)
>> - language (iso lang code)
> I think this object type has more properties than anything we've ever
> defined before. Are books really more complicated than everything else or is
> this property overkill?
Quite possibly, yes. This is mainly why I wanted to socialize this
particular item. I've been considering drafting up a document that
describes the domain specific of Activity Streams with Creative Works.
If you look at the Schema.org definition of creative works, you'll
notice that they define most of these as abstract properties shared
and inherited by many different types of objects. A document that
defines activity stream objects for creative works can follow the same
Yeah, I have no problem paring these back a bit ... even possibly
simply defining the basic objectType but leaving the specific
properties empty for now... allowing the detail to be filled in by
domain specific implementations.
It is somewhat limited, but consider the statement, "Sally Jones
changed her name to Sally Smith". I'm not 100% sold on this one, but I
have seen the case come up and wanted to at least surface it for
The object itself represents information about a single version but
can contain links to other related versions. However, those particular
properties can be pulled back out easily... they are not critical to
the use case by any means.
> In particular, I don't understand why activeVersion and stableVersion are
> properties of version and not instead a property of the object that is
> The terminology is a little confusing too. This thing is really "version
> information", not "a version"; a version of a book is represented by a book
> object that has version information, not by a version object.
I used "version" because it's shorter than "version-information" ;-)
.. but you're right.