search

w3c / activitystreams

Activity Streams 2.0
https://www.w3.org/TR/activitystreams-core/
Other
276 stars 60 forks source link

Remove vocabulary/activitystreams2.owl #559

Closed ThisIsMissEm closed 7 months ago

ThisIsMissEm commented 7 months ago

This file has now been moved to a separate repository located at: https://github.com/swicg/activitystreams2-owl

Closes #556 #516

gobengo commented 7 months ago

In the future, please consider allowing more time for review of PRs that remove files from the repository, and consider seeking input on a w3.org SWICG list before doing so.

I disagree that this was the best way of resolving #556, which could have been fixed by correcting the owl file instead of removing it entirely.

ThisIsMissEm commented 7 months ago

In the future, please consider allowing more time for review of PRs that remove files from the repository, and consider seeking input on a w3.org SWICG list before doing so.

I disagree that this was the best way of resolving #556, which could have been fixed by correcting the owl file instead of removing it entirely.

@evanp can correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe the understanding was that because it was non-normative and unmaintained or buggy that moving it to a place where it could be properly maintained was preferable.

Other options such as writing tooling to validate the file were also floated.

csarven commented 7 months ago

This PR doesn't resolve the underlying referenced issues. The issues are (still) relevant irrespective to the repository that the source AS2 OWL is part of. See also https://github.com/w3c/activitystreams/issues/516#issuecomment-1846270024 .

As for normativeness, implementation reports or draft-extensions-policy.html , for example, are not "normative" either, but they're in this repository. (No, I'm not suggesting those should be move elsewhere or that moving them will even things out.) Point being, the whole repository is not strictly about what's deemed to be a normative reference from a specification.

The AS2 JSON-LD context fundamentally refers to the vocabulary (by identifiers) in which the activitystreams-owl was intended to provide when published. So, that should be part of the focus on resolving / maintaining what's being requested, while keeping the related material close to each other instead of further away.

evanp commented 7 months ago

@gobengo I don't know if you saw that the file is now in its own repo. The idea was to give a file that we were reluctant to maintain since it would make it more official a life of its own for people who wanted to use it.

That said, yes, I shouldn't have hit the Merge button so fast. I'll revert and we can have the discussion on the list. Thanks for keeping us honest!

nightpool commented 7 months ago

The OWL file has been an unofficial project from the very beginning. The fact that it's in this repository gives it the unintentional imprimatur of an "official" spec document, which misleads people into depending on it as above, and it makes it harder/slower to update. Moving it into a separate repository will let the community that actually uses the file maintain it as they see fit.

On Thu, Dec 7, 2023, 6:25 PM Sarven Capadisli @.***> wrote:

This PR doesn't resolve the underlying referenced issues. The issues are (still) relevant irrespective to the repository that the source AS2 OWL is part of. See also #516 (comment) https://github.com/w3c/activitystreams/issues/516#issuecomment-1846270024 .

As for normativeness, implementation reports or draft-extensions-policy.html , for example, are not "normative" either, but they're in this repository. (No, I'm not suggesting those should be move elsewhere or that moving them will even things out.) Point being, the whole repository is not strictly about what's deemed to be a normative reference from a specification.

The AS2 JSON-LD context fundamentally refers to the vocabulary (by identifiers) in which the activitystreams-owl was intended to provide when published. So, that should be part of the focus on resolving / maintaining what's being requested, while keeping the related material close to each other instead of further away.

— Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub https://github.com/w3c/activitystreams/pull/559#issuecomment-1846311013, or unsubscribe https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AABZCVZAWZZSQYNGUUA3WRTYIJM7TAVCNFSM6AAAAABAKA53FGVHI2DSMVQWIX3LMV43OSLTON2WKQ3PNVWWK3TUHMYTQNBWGMYTCMBRGM . You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.Message ID: @.***>

evanp commented 7 months ago

I've reverted and will post on the email list.