Schema Draft Updated
30 views
Skip to first unread message
James M Snell
May 8, 2012, 9:00:32 PM5/8/12
to activity...@googlegroups.com
I have updated the schema draft with many of the new verbs discussed
and a few new object types. This document should still be considered
to be a draft. As always, continued feedback is welcomed and
requested.
The current draft is located at:
http://activitystrea.ms/specs/json/schema/activity-schema.html
- James
and a few new object types. This document should still be considered
to be a draft. As always, continued feedback is welcomed and
requested.
The current draft is located at:
http://activitystrea.ms/specs/json/schema/activity-schema.html
- James
Laurent-Walter Goix
May 9, 2012, 2:29:00 PM5/9/12
to Activity Streams
thank you very much James for this exhaustive update. could you
highlights the main changes re previous version? In particular the new
verbs/object types and whether you changed the name of some that
already existed.
may i further ask you if your intention is to release a stable v1.0 of
it anytime soon?
last, the wording "at a minimum" is quite unclear to me, also
considering that some properties already exist in the "basic" object
and others are described as optional. could you clarify what is the
normative implication of such statement?
thanks
walter
highlights the main changes re previous version? In particular the new
verbs/object types and whether you changed the name of some that
already existed.
may i further ask you if your intention is to release a stable v1.0 of
it anytime soon?
last, the wording "at a minimum" is quite unclear to me, also
considering that some properties already exist in the "basic" object
and others are described as optional. could you clarify what is the
normative implication of such statement?
thanks
walter
James M Snell
May 9, 2012, 2:35:13 PM5/9/12
to activity...@googlegroups.com
On Wed, May 9, 2012 at 11:29 AM, Laurent-Walter Goix
<laurentwa...@gmail.com> wrote:
> thank you very much James for this exhaustive update. could you
> highlights the main changes re previous version? In particular the new
> verbs/object types and whether you changed the name of some that
> already existed.
I have posted a summary on my personal blog... rather than copy all
<laurentwa...@gmail.com> wrote:
> thank you very much James for this exhaustive update. could you
> highlights the main changes re previous version? In particular the new
> verbs/object types and whether you changed the name of some that
> already existed.
that down here..
http://chmod777self.blogspot.com/2012/05/activity-streams-happenings.html
The new items are indicated in bold text. None of the existing items
were changed.
>
> may i further ask you if your intention is to release a stable v1.0 of
> it anytime soon?
I get good feedback and can get a good sense that there is consensus
on the verbs and objects.
>
> last, the wording "at a minimum" is quite unclear to me, also
> considering that some properties already exist in the "basic" object
> and others are described as optional. could you clarify what is the
> normative implication of such statement?
>
meaning is not to convey that the existing properties are required or
changed in any way, but that they are minimally meaningful to the
object. I need to come up with another way of conveying that
information... likely through the use of clear, concrete examples.
Watch for another iteration of the draft to be posted this week with
editorial updates.
- James
> thanks
> walter
>
> On May 9, 3:00 am, James M Snell <jasn...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> I have updated the schema draft with many of the new verbs discussed
>> and a few new object types. This document should still be considered
>> to be a draft. As always, continued feedback is welcomed and
>> requested.
>>
>> The current draft is located at:http://activitystrea.ms/specs/json/schema/activity-schema.html
>>
>> - 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.
>
James M Snell
May 9, 2012, 4:33:45 PM5/9/12
to activity...@googlegroups.com
One point that came up in discussion with Monica about the new
update... several of the new object types are somewhat speculative in
nature and may not make sense for the basic core schema. I added them
to the current draft to solicit feedback; several may end up not
making the final cut of the document. Those that do not will be pushed
to a secondary "extension" document where they can be iterated on
further.
update... several of the new object types are somewhat speculative in
nature and may not make sense for the basic core schema. I added them
to the current draft to solicit feedback; several may end up not
making the final cut of the document. Those that do not will be pushed
to a secondary "extension" document where they can be iterated on
further.
Laurent-Walter Goix
May 9, 2012, 4:45:00 PM5/9/12
to Activity Streams
On May 9, 8:35 pm, James M Snell <jasn...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Wed, May 9, 2012 at 11:29 AM, Laurent-Walter Goix
>
> On Wed, May 9, 2012 at 11:29 AM, Laurent-Walter Goix
>
> <laurentwalter.g...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > thank you very much James for this exhaustive update. could you
> > highlights the main changes re previous version? In particular the new
> > verbs/object types and whether you changed the name of some that
> > already existed.
>
> I have posted a summary on my personal blog... rather than copy all
> that down here..
>
> http://chmod777self.blogspot.com/2012/05/activity-streams-happenings....
> > thank you very much James for this exhaustive update. could you
> > highlights the main changes re previous version? In particular the new
> > verbs/object types and whether you changed the name of some that
> > already existed.
>
> I have posted a summary on my personal blog... rather than copy all
> that down here..
>
>
> The new items are indicated in bold text. None of the existing items
> were changed.
thanks for this. as i can see most of the changes are going either
> The new items are indicated in bold text. None of the existing items
> were changed.
into the entreprise SN direction, or media consumption/experience and
gaming. here are some more specific comments:
- i am not sure about the difference between "retract" and "delete"
but i admit this may be because of my limited english. anyway maybe a
clearer description could help. is this more related to auctions-type
of actions (i have noticed the new sell & purchase)?
- maybe the "answer" verb could well suit the "Question" object: i
could not figure out so far how to represent this type of activity
otherwise
- regarding Binary & File, could these eventually be merged (e.g. the
File could benefit the md5 property as well) which type of use case do
you envision for this? i assume that for small binaries a File object
with data: URI could work as well, so is this intended for larger
binaries (e.g. uploading a picture)?
- reporting abuses (aka flag as inappropriate) are also quite common
activities in SN. what about defining an "Abuse" object type (more
flexible than a "report-abuse" or "flag-inappropriate")? a "summary"
property may be interesting here
> > last, the wording "at a minimum" is quite unclear to me, also
> > considering that some properties already exist in the "basic" object
> > and others are described as optional. could you clarify what is the
> > normative implication of such statement?
>
> I'm actually considering rewording this in an update. Essentially, the
> meaning is not to convey that the existing properties are required or
> changed in any way, but that they are minimally meaningful to the
> object. I need to come up with another way of conveying that
> information... likely through the use of clear, concrete examples.
> Watch for another iteration of the draft to be posted this week with
> editorial updates.
(which ones MAY meaningfully be provided) as you seem to have some
ideas already.
walter
James M Snell
May 9, 2012, 5:11:25 PM5/9/12
to activity...@googlegroups.com
On Wed, May 9, 2012 at 1:45 PM, Laurent-Walter Goix
<laurentwa...@gmail.com> wrote:
[snip]
are derived from efforts such as Tin Can.
> - i am not sure about the difference between "retract" and "delete"
> but i admit this may be because of my limited english. anyway maybe a
> clearer description could help. is this more related to auctions-type
> of actions (i have noticed the new sell & purchase)?
The two are very closely related, yes, but differ one important way:
deletion implies destruction; retraction only implies that the object
was "pulled back" or "disavowed".
> - maybe the "answer" verb could well suit the "Question" object: i
> could not figure out so far how to represent this type of activity
> otherwise
We have an existing mechanism for indicating that any given object is
a "reply to" any other object in the form of the "inReplyTo" (see the
Replies extension for Activity Streams).... We also use a Question
object as the target of an activity... for instance:
{
"actor": {"displayName":"Joe"},
"verb": "post",
"object": {"objectType":"note","content":"my answer"},
"target": {"objectType":"question", ...}
}
That said, I'm not opposed to an "answer" verb, but I don't think it's
strictly necessary.
> - regarding Binary & File, could these eventually be merged (e.g. the
> File could benefit the md5 property as well) which type of use case do
> you envision for this? i assume that for small binaries a File object
> with data: URI could work as well, so is this intended for larger
> binaries (e.g. uploading a picture)?
Entirely possible but the two are intended to serve very difficult
purposes. I had intended binary to be used more in relation to the
"attachments" property on another object rather than as a standalone
object.
> - reporting abuses (aka flag as inappropriate) are also quite common
> activities in SN. what about defining an "Abuse" object type (more
> flexible than a "report-abuse" or "flag-inappropriate")? a "summary"
> property may be interesting here
>
Hmm... good point. Going to have to think about it.
>
>> > last, the wording "at a minimum" is quite unclear to me, also
>> > considering that some properties already exist in the "basic" object
>> > and others are described as optional. could you clarify what is the
>> > normative implication of such statement?
>>
>> I'm actually considering rewording this in an update. Essentially, the
>> meaning is not to convey that the existing properties are required or
>> changed in any way, but that they are minimally meaningful to the
>> object. I need to come up with another way of conveying that
>> information... likely through the use of clear, concrete examples.
>> Watch for another iteration of the draft to be posted this week with
>> editorial updates.
>
> ok, i'll wait for you to propose a new wording for the properties
> (which ones MAY meaningfully be provided) as you seem to have some
> ideas already.
>
> walter
>
<laurentwa...@gmail.com> wrote:
[snip]
>
> thanks for this. as i can see most of the changes are going either
> into the entreprise SN direction, or media consumption/experience and
> gaming. here are some more specific comments:
Generally yes. Several are being driven by SCM-style systems; others
> thanks for this. as i can see most of the changes are going either
> into the entreprise SN direction, or media consumption/experience and
> gaming. here are some more specific comments:
are derived from efforts such as Tin Can.
> - i am not sure about the difference between "retract" and "delete"
> but i admit this may be because of my limited english. anyway maybe a
> clearer description could help. is this more related to auctions-type
> of actions (i have noticed the new sell & purchase)?
deletion implies destruction; retraction only implies that the object
was "pulled back" or "disavowed".
> - maybe the "answer" verb could well suit the "Question" object: i
> could not figure out so far how to represent this type of activity
> otherwise
a "reply to" any other object in the form of the "inReplyTo" (see the
Replies extension for Activity Streams).... We also use a Question
object as the target of an activity... for instance:
{
"actor": {"displayName":"Joe"},
"verb": "post",
"object": {"objectType":"note","content":"my answer"},
"target": {"objectType":"question", ...}
}
That said, I'm not opposed to an "answer" verb, but I don't think it's
strictly necessary.
> - regarding Binary & File, could these eventually be merged (e.g. the
> File could benefit the md5 property as well) which type of use case do
> you envision for this? i assume that for small binaries a File object
> with data: URI could work as well, so is this intended for larger
> binaries (e.g. uploading a picture)?
purposes. I had intended binary to be used more in relation to the
"attachments" property on another object rather than as a standalone
object.
> - reporting abuses (aka flag as inappropriate) are also quite common
> activities in SN. what about defining an "Abuse" object type (more
> flexible than a "report-abuse" or "flag-inappropriate")? a "summary"
> property may be interesting here
>
>
>> > last, the wording "at a minimum" is quite unclear to me, also
>> > considering that some properties already exist in the "basic" object
>> > and others are described as optional. could you clarify what is the
>> > normative implication of such statement?
>>
>> I'm actually considering rewording this in an update. Essentially, the
>> meaning is not to convey that the existing properties are required or
>> changed in any way, but that they are minimally meaningful to the
>> object. I need to come up with another way of conveying that
>> information... likely through the use of clear, concrete examples.
>> Watch for another iteration of the draft to be posted this week with
>> editorial updates.
>
> ok, i'll wait for you to propose a new wording for the properties
> (which ones MAY meaningfully be provided) as you seem to have some
> ideas already.
>
> walter
>
Reply all
Reply to author
Forward
0 new messages