FEP-8485: Unbound Actor

[diogo]

@lynnfoster

Although I can’t just speak for VF, I would personally be happy to use a more universal agent model instead of the one we have, which is partly foaf, partly org, but all vf in the relationship area because we couldn’t find what we needed, and weren’t thinking outside of the vf economic model at that time. Now that we’ve been working with Bonfire and others, seeing the necessary integration of social and economic, etc., I picture this whole area (people, orgs, groups, relationships) being its own vocabulary, which could be used by other vocabularies, instead of each one having their own version. And maybe just some more flexible range definitions or some cross-vocab owl:sameAs kind of things would do a lot, but I don’t have enough rdf coding experience to know what that means for devs. But is that more in the spirit of the web?

I don’t know enough about rdf to come with something here either, but was searching for alternatives that can potentially model this or at the very least bring new ideas/perspectives. And have found AgRelOn, an Agent Relationship Ontology and the Agreements ontology . They are tangent as their usage domain is fairly different of ours.

I was unable to find a LOV that models this directed collaboration/knowledge relationship/agreement between actors/agents.

@lynnfoster and @aschrijver: I don’t really like AgentRelationshipRole requires an ID… I was playing in JSON-LD Playground and came up with this:

{
	"@context": {
		"@vocab": "https://www.w3.org/ns/activitystreams",
		"vf": "https://w3id.org/valueflows#"
	},
	"summary": "!hackers@social.undefinedhackers.net links to !lug@gnusocial.net",
	"id": "https://social.undefinedhackers.net/group/hackers/relationships/123",
	"type": "Relationship",
	"subject": "https://social.undefinedhackers.net/group/hackers",
	"relationship": "vf:AgentRelationshipRole",
	"object": "https://gnusocial.net/group/lug",
	"context": {
		"vf:roleLabel": "has a link to",
		"vf:inverseRoleLabel": "has a link from"
	}
}

The id of this AgentRelationshipRole would thus expressed by the Relationship Activity’s id… Would this work instead or is it too much of a stretch?

@aschrijver

I left out the target here, because I’d need to learn more about this before doing so. In ActivityStreams 5.2.1 Modeling friends requests is an interesting flow to look at, I think.

Experimenting with that:

{
	"@context": "https://www.w3.org/ns/activitystreams",
	"id": "https://social.undefinedhackers.net/activity/1337",
	"summary": "!hackers@social.undefinedhackers.net offered to link to !lug@gnusocial.net",
	"type": "Offer",
	"actor": "https://social.undefinedhackers.net/group/hackers",
	"object": "https://social.undefinedhackers.net/group/hackers/relationships/123",
	"target": "https://gnusocial.net/group/lug/relationships"
}