Activity Streams 2.0?

[James M Snell]

All,

Prompted by a recent proposal to add activities to schema.org as well
as to scratch a few itches I've had after implementing 1.0... I have
written a draft of what I think an Activity Streams 2.0 ought to look
like. This is still very early and just represents my initial
thoughts.

Details here...

http://www.chmod777self.com/2013/05/time-for-updated-activity-streams.html

Draft spec here...

https://raw.github.com/jasnell/json-activity/2.0/json-activity-2.txt

I'll repeat that this is just a draft and just represents my own
thinking around what a 2.0 syntax ought to look like. Feedback in any
form is greatly appreciated!

- James

[Bill Christian]

Do you have an example that implements some of the recent concepts around actions, etc? I am curious how a new spec might address communicating possible actions to take on the event or an object.

[James M Snell]

Take a look here:

https://github.com/jasnell/specs/blob/master/activitystrea.ms/action_extension_2.txt

This is just a draft but it shows how several of the action/handler
concepts introduced by the schema.org proposal can be handled as
extensions to the 2.0 syntax while retaining compatibility with the
original Schema.org proposal.

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

[Melvin Carvalho]

+1 looks like an excellent start

[Bill Christian]

Apologies James. I read this spec earlier and did not stop to think it was in the newer format. Thanks for not page slapping me too hard. 

[James M Snell]

No worries. The version I just referred you to is an updated version
of what I sent out the other day. This one builds on the proposed new
2.0 syntax while the original one used the 1.0 syntax :-)

- James

On Wed, May 29, 2013 at 12:50 PM, Bill Christian

[Pat Cappelaere]

James,

Interesting extension that kind of cross over to discovery (what can this service do?)… but then you have discovery documents for that.

One thing that I have been considering is beyond activities, you may want to consider the product that may be generated as a result of that activity being performed.
Sometime you may need more than one activity to generate a significant product… so you may need to define a behavior or sequence of activities to be initiated at the user level… with activities actually running on the specified servers.

Behaviors can be defined in Javascript and served as code on demand to the client… to generate a product of interest… on-demand.

So think of users searching for a specific product and receiving potential behaviors from multiple servers.
Users could execute the preferred behavior based on some constraints (cost, location, speed…)… which generates an activity stream… that can be duplicated by friends interested in similar products… :)

This would be REST level 5 :)…
Interesting?

Cheers,

Pat.

[☮ elf Pavlik ☮]

Excerpts from James M Snell's message of 2013-05-29 06:23:30 +0000:

> All,
>
> Prompted by a recent proposal to add activities to schema.org as well
> as to scratch a few itches I've had after implementing 1.0... I have
> written a draft of what I think an Activity Streams 2.0 ought to look
> like. This is still very early and just represents my initial
> thoughts.
>
> Details here...
>
> http://www.chmod777self.com/2013/05/time-for-updated-activity-streams.html

"The updated syntax is designed to be directly compatible with JSON-LD"
sounds to me like a way to go!

[Bill Christian]

With the combining of objectType and verb, should the spec adopted a scoped type value similar to Schema.org e.g. "http://schema.org/LogInAction". 

On Wednesday, May 29, 2013 2:23:30 AM UTC-4, James M Snell wrote: