Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Reference issues inline in the spec #29

Closed
4 tasks
elf-pavlik opened this issue Oct 12, 2014 · 1 comment
Closed
4 tasks

Reference issues inline in the spec #29

elf-pavlik opened this issue Oct 12, 2014 · 1 comment

Comments

@elf-pavlik
Copy link
Member

http://www.w3.org/2014/Process-20140801/#working-draft states:

A Public Working Draft is published on the W3C's Technical Reports page [TR] for review, and for simple historical reference. For all Public Working Drafts a Working Group

  • SHOULD document outstanding issues, and parts of the document on which the Working Group does not have consensus, and
  • MAY request publication of a Working Draft even if its content is considered unstable and does not meet all Working Group requirements.

I propose adding more significant issues inline to the spec, currently:

ISSUE: currently all the examples don't include JSON-LD @context you can find working version at http://asjsonld.mybluemix.net/

ISSUE: as:Link uses same @id as resource it targets and most of its properties (except as:rel) describe the representation of a resource it targets not the link itself

ISSUE: as:Activity and as:PotentialAction use @type and/or as:verb to specify their type

ISSUE: using blank node identifiers (eg. _:post) for values of as:verb can cause problems with comparing it across multiple JSON-LD documents even when they serialize single activity stream. Persisting activities with such blank node identifiers in triple stores will also result in them changing to different, not predictable, blank node identifiers. Also various processing algorithms will relabel blank nodes.

@jasnell
Copy link
Collaborator

jasnell commented Nov 4, 2014

With Editors Hat on, I would rather address this issue by issue. If the WG feels that a particular issue is controversial enough to call out specifically in the draft, I will include an appropriate ed note. Otherwise, the draft already has a link back to the issues list for reference

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

3 participants