Schema document update / and a question

[James M Snell]

Ok, I've made another editorial/structural update to the schema doc in
order to simplify things a bit more.

One thing that Monica brought up today is that the document itself has
actually changed very significantly from what it was. In fact, I do
not believe that any of the original text from when I first start
editing it actually exists. The list of authors currently on the draft
is not accurate; though the names listed certainly had major technical
input along the way. Therefore, I wanted to ask any of the authors
currently listed in the spec if they wanted me to remove or retain
their names as authors on the document. Please let me know.

- James

[Laurent-Walter Goix]

thanks james for cleaning this up, the new table for object types and
the associated wording are much more comprehensible! some comments:

- before the verbs table it may be useful to clarify as a generic
concept that these verbs typically relate to "past" activities that
were already performed when such activities are retrieved into feeds
or similar, and may indicate activities currently being performed when
creating such activities. they are not actual "commands" probably and
you may say this much better to capture some subtle meanings (e.g.
some verbs may not be meaningful in an activity being POSTed/
created...). in other words the use of past time in the description
("the actor has..." may be reductive in some cases
- for the "comment" object in particular you may want to refer to json-
replies when mentioning inReplyTo
- audio and video have the same extra properties, which could be
defined in a dedicated section
- file and binary could probably be defined together in a dedicated
section as well, clarifying the distinction between both object type
names (and related usage) but still describing their common properties
once (file could also have md5 or compression, and file length may
also be useful, as all these properties are anyway optional)
- have you been considering adding the "abuse" object type?

thanks
walter

[James M Snell]

On Wed, May 16, 2012 at 7:18 AM, Laurent-Walter Goix
<laurentwa...@gmail.com> wrote:
> thanks james for cleaning this up, the new table for object types and
> the associated wording are much more comprehensible! some comments:
>
> - before the verbs table it may be useful to clarify as a generic
> concept that these verbs typically relate to "past" activities that
> were already performed when such activities are retrieved into feeds
> or similar, and may indicate activities currently being performed when
> creating such activities. they are not actual "commands" probably and
> you may say this much better to capture some subtle meanings (e.g.
> some verbs may not be meaningful in an activity being POSTed/
> created...). in other words the use of past time in the description
> ("the actor has..." may be reductive in some cases

Yes, I plan on adding some additional prose around this...

> - for the "comment" object in particular you may want to refer to json-
> replies when mentioning inReplyTo

Agreed.

> - audio and video have the same extra properties, which could be
> defined in a dedicated section
> - file and binary could probably be defined together in a dedicated
> section as well, clarifying the distinction between both object type
> names (and related usage) but still describing their common properties
> once (file could also have md5 or compression, and file length may
> also be useful, as all these properties are anyway optional)

Yeah, I'm still thinking about how best to represent those.

> - have you been considering adding the "abuse" object type?

I'm considering it, yes, but I'm not sure how best to represent it.
This is one of those things that can be represented as a Verb or an
Object... for instance..

{"actor":{"displayName":"James"},
"verb": "flaggedAsInappropriate",
"object":{"displayName":"article"}}

vs.

{
"actor":{"displayName":"James"},
"verb": "post",
"object":{"objectType":"abuse", ... }
}

I have to admit that I'm leaning more in favor of the Verb approach.

- James

>
> thanks
> walter
>
> On May 15, 2:40 am, James M Snell <jasn...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Ok, I've made another editorial/structural update to the schema doc in
>> order to simplify things a bit more.
>>
>> One thing that Monica brought up today is that the document itself has
>> actually changed very significantly from what it was. In fact, I do
>> not believe that any of the original text from when I first start
>> editing it actually exists. The list of authors currently on the draft
>> is not accurate; though the names listed certainly had major technical
>> input along the way. Therefore, I wanted to ask any of the authors
>> currently listed in the spec if they wanted me to remove or retain
>> their names as authors on the document. Please let me know.
>>
>> - James
>

> --
> 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.
>