Gaming templates updated on the wiki

[Jason Kahn]

I’ve just updated the wiki gaming page to better align with this week’s version of the Activities in ATOM spec.

 

One question around where to put the information about the game: The guidance around activity:target specifically says not to use it for cases where the indirect object does not function as the target.  In this case, you don’t “win to a game,” so I’m pretty sure game info shouldn’t go under activity:target.  Not sure where the best place for it is, though.  In the wiki example, I’ve put it into an activity:context element, but it looks like activity:context is no longer in the spec.  Is there a better place to put indirect objects which are not targets?

 

Any thoughts on the possibility of this making it into the 1.0 version of the spec?  I’d be happy to help write up something that could be pasted into the spec…

 

Thanks!

Jason

[Will Norris]

well, I'm not entirely sure that putting the game in the activity:target would violate its intended use.  The target doesn't *necessarily* have to be the object of the preposition "to", that's just kind of a guide.  In the end, the verb defines the exact meaning of target.  I'm not sure that we have a good litmus test yet for identifying what is and is not appropriate for use in target... it still feels a bit hazy at times.

-will

[Chris Messina]

Interesting use case.

I'd say that <activity:target> doesn't work since it acts more as a container; and since we removed <activity:context> (because it's a bit vague and would end up being a catch-all that most aggregators would probably just ignore), that doesn't leave you any "official" option.

That said, it seems to me that the verb is "won" and the object is the game... 

"Chris won Mario Kart". 

Some time ago we had the notion of an "indirect object", which I suppose is what "target" is used for now. Hmm. We haven't tried to model competitions so far, as in someone beat someone else, or that somebody won at a game and somebody lost...

Though "target" seems to be not quite right, and something like "<activity:indirect-object>" would be more semantically correct, it would more confusing from an implementation perspective.

How would you want aggregators to use this information?

Chris

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Activity Streams" group.
To post to this group, send email to activity...@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to activity-strea...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/activity-streams?hl=en.

--
Chris Messina
Open Web Advocate, Google

Personal: http://factoryjoe.com
Follow me on Buzz: http://buzz.google.com/chrismessina
...or Twitter: http://twitter.com/chrismessina

This email is:   [ ] shareable    [X] ask first   [ ] private