naturzukunftHave there been any further discussions on this? I think it’s becoming increasingly important!
https://github.com/steve-bate/activitypub-ontology/blob/main/activitystreams2.ttl
Steve Bate@naturzukunft2026 No recent discussions. A year or two ago I tried submitting some related issues to update the W3C AP (really AS2) ontology but there was a lot of resistance to updating it for some reason that's mysterious to me.
1/2 @steve
I get the feeling that something regarding AP is being suppressed somehow. Which surely can’t be in line with the W3C’s intentions. Perhaps we need an ontology in a parallel universe. I have the feeling anyway that there are two camps within the community regarding RDF.
I get the feeling that something regarding AP is being suppressed somehow. Which surely can’t be in line with the W3C’s intentions. Perhaps we need an ontology in a parallel universe. I have the feeling anyway that there are two camps within the community regarding RDF.
🫧 socialcoding..I don't think 'suppressed' is the right word, but rather think you are feeling the *inertia* of the installed base. A reluctance to spend time on enabling technologies, by the majority of fedi app developers who already figured out how AS/AP works for them. Who are thus enabled to code, focused on their own project and less interested to mingle in time-consuming discussion. On what they consider out of scope, less relevant than adding features.
@smallcircles @naturzukunft2026 I'm not sure "suppressed" is the correct word, but it wasn't an issue of lack of time. There was active opposition to maintaining the AP ontology. I have no idea why and it was probably a coincidence that the primary opposition came from a Solid contributor. At least a conflict of interest would make more sense than the explanations I was being given for refusing to merge PRs related to the ontology.
2/2 @steve
We need to ensure that we have – or find – a compatibility layer between the two groups. My ideas are a bit more complex and I’d like to be able to document and communicate them somehow. So at the moment I’ve started working on my own ontology as an extension to yours. For now, this is just for internal use. But when you federate new types, I wouldn’t know how else to describe it.
We need to ensure that we have – or find – a compatibility layer between the two groups. My ideas are a bit more complex and I’d like to be able to document and communicate them somehow. So at the moment I’ve started working on my own ontology as an extension to yours. For now, this is just for internal use. But when you federate new types, I wouldn’t know how else to describe it.
For Protosocial AP extension I intend to conceptually divide the protocol layer into 2 API's. The Protosocial API provides a closed-world view of the social network as a JSON-LD-formatted but plain JSON distributed actor-based messaging architecture. While the Knowledge API exposes read-only open world information supporting full linked data.
As for compatibility layer, bridging these worlds, the idea is that services encapsulate their design, which can be introspected and validated against.