On Wed, Apr 30, 2014 at 10:24 AM, Owen Shepherd <owen.s...@e43.eu> wrote:Considered that, however, the Activity Streams 2.0 model is definitely
> See https://github.com/jasnell/activitystreams.jsonld
>
> {"actor":{"displayName": "Owen Shepherd"}, "verb": "like", "object": {"url":
> "https://github.com/jasnell/activitystreams.jsonld"}}
>
> Two comments:
>
> It maps all keys to RDF entities in namespace http://activitystrea.ms/2.0/.
> Wisdom is that RDF namespaces should not be versioned - they should be
> forever. It's basically impossible to change an RDF namespace without all
> hell breaking loose.
>
> This should probably just be http://activitystrea.ms/?
>
distinct from 1.0. There are a number of important differences that
could get lost.
I think this is worthwhile, but the bit I need to be most careful of
> A while back I started drafting up an RDF OWL schema for ActivityStreams.
> Should I revive that?
>
> What we would then have is an RDF schema which defines ActivityStreams in
> RDF form, and a JSON-LD schema which translated that to "normal" JSON. From
> that, the ActivityStreams JSON 2.0 spec would be a profile of JSON-LD - a
> subset, with an implied context. application/activitystreams+json would
> imply that you could either parse the file as raw JSON or using a JSON-LD
> parser into a triple store
>
is maintaining backwards compatibility with Activity Streams 1.0.
Things like the "objectType" property do not map cleanly to the
equivalent JSON-LD "@type", for instance, and it's not clear how
things like AS 2.0 Type Values would need to be handled.
- James
Thank you. Much appreciated. Merging effort would be good, I think.