exerciseType vs. activityType

[smnmyr]

It would be beneficial to make the type definition reusable in other scenarios - I thus suggest that we call the type property "activityType" instead of "exerciseType"

[dret]

agreed. we also have to come up with a solid concept how to make this concept reusable outside of the context of the "exercise" verb. so far AS (in their 1.0 variety; a more model-based 2.0 version may end up providing different features) do not really have a concept for this. but for our future plans (such as for an activity-level provenance concept) we might need a way to make properties consistently reusable across verbs.

[dret]

AS2 has the concept of a hierarchy of activities, but currently does not clearly define if (and how) this hierarchy is part of the processing model. Since we are using AS1 which (thankfully) has a flat space of verbs, it would be good to have this.
but: activityType may be a bit misleading because the "activityType" actually is the "verb", right? so maybe look for alternative names? "subVerb" comes to mind but sounds kind of silly, any other suggestions?

[smnmyr]

• verbDefinition
• verbSpecification
• activitySpecification
• replace / amend the verb property by adding namespaces, subVerbs, etc., and call it "activityType" oh man.

[dret]

i'd say this property is neither defining nor specifying anything; it's more like "refinement" of the "main verb type". so maybe stick with "subVerb" or "subType", with the latter maybe being a little less strange.

[smnmyr]

Let's go with "subVerb" to avoid confusion about "type=verb"...

[dret]

fine with me. just fyi: what's "verb" in AS1 becomes "type" in AS2 ("@type" to be precise, because it's based on JSON-LD), so if we want to keep an eye on AS2, going with "subType" might also make kind of sense: http://www.w3.org/TR/2015/WD-activitystreams-core-20150129/#activities

[dret]

follow-up: if we now have no way to cleanly match just the namespace (as we could before), how do we deal with this? is there prefix-based matching on the subVerb assuming that people will use "namespaces" that use stable prefixes? any other idea how to deal with that? it seems that this capability would be a useful feature for ASbase to support, right?

[smnmyr]

In my view, we're counting on stable prefixes - and that's it ;-)

[dret]

ok, this works as long as people are using them. so i guess wherever we end up defining and documenting the "subVerb" property, we should make sure to add some text that explains that it would be a good idea to use stable prefixes for concepts from one particular subVerb "namespace".

[smnmyr]

ack

On Thu, Feb 26, 2015 at 11:45 PM, Erik Wilde notifications@github.com
wrote:

ok, this works as long as people are using them. so i guess wherever we
end up defining and documenting the "subVerb" property, we should make sure
to add some text that explains that it would be a good idea to use stable
prefixes for concepts from one particular subVerb "namespace".

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