where's the "post" verb in the vocabulary?

[dret]

maybe i am reading the tables wrong, but shouldn't http://jasnell.github.io/w3c-socialwg-activitystreams/activitystreams2-vocabulary.html#dfn-verb say that there is a "post" very defined by the spec itself (and that all other verb values MUST be URIs)?

[jasnell]

Possibly. That's not clear tho. "post" doesn't actually belong to a vocabulary, it's just a simple identifier. We need to figure out how to best handle the legacy AS1 simple token identifiers like "post".

[dret]

i agree that handling the string-only identifiers is important, but i think saying that they are "not part of a vocabulary" is a bit unintuitive. they may be the "legacy" or "built-in" or whatever-else vocabulary, but implementers should know about them, so they are part of the vocabulary that they need to support.

[jasnell]

What I've been considering is the definition of a "Legacy Vocabulary"... an
additional JSON-LD @context that maps the AS1 objectType and verb terms to
a URI namespace. Use of the additional @context would be optional and
separate from the main AS2 @context.

On Wed Oct 22 2014 at 4:42:37 PM Erik Wilde notifications@github.com
wrote:

i agree that handling the string-only identifiers is important, but i
think saying that they are "not part of a vocabulary" is a bit unintuitive.
they may be the "legacy" or "built-in" or whatever-else vocabulary, but
implementers should know about them, so they are part of the vocabulary
that they need to support.

—
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub
#37 (comment)
.

[dret]

that sounds reasonable to me. it just would be good to have an easy way of finding out about the basic terms one has to understand in a basic implementation. in IETF-land, that would probably be a registry which still seems like the most sensible approach to me. any chance we can even have registries in W3C-land? i'd be more than happy to help to add this piece of robustness to the specs.

[elf-pavlik]

@dret FYI

• as:verb - consequences of using blank node identifier (eg. _:post) #36 has some concerns regarding using blank node identifiers (like _:post) to identify as:verb (which started as side track in following issue)
• as:Verb & as:verb possibly not needed #23 has some discussions around considering as:verb redundant or crucial part of the vocabulary
• separate @context to include when processing AS1.0 documents #30 suggests creating separate JSON-LD @context when processing AS1 documents

also http://activitystrea.ms/head/activity-schema.html#verbs - Activity Base Schema (Draft) - includes some verbs
last but not least maybe discussion with schema.org during TPAC could offer solution for vocabulary of 'verbs' or action/activity types and open 'registry'
https://www.w3.org/wiki/TPAC2014/SessionIdeas#Schema.org_and_Social_WG

[elf-pavlik]

this one has even more verbs: http://activitystrea.ms/specs/json/schema/activity-schema.html#verbs

[jasnell]

And object types... the most recent version of the base schema document is hosted here: https://github.com/activitystreams/activity-schema/blob/master/activity-schema.md .. my plan is to write up a Note that proposes a way of handling these "legacy" verb and objectTypes.

[jasnell]

Covered by proposed "Extended Vocabulary"