image - to be decided. I like the idea, but one of my goals is making proposals discoverable from social services like Mastodon, so attachment might be a better choice.
Makes sense to use as much AP/AS as possible, as you have generally done.
Money is offered in exchange for a service.
I see this more as primarily a request for the service, not an offer for money, although I realize there is no
Request activity type atm. Note also it should work the same way if there is money involved, or it is a gift. So that means basically people are communicating about the main intent. But I also see your thought process, so maybe I need to think more about it.
Proposals can be linked to actors (if actor provides a service) or to other objects (if they represent economic resources) using FEP-0ea0 payment links.
I’m not totally clear what this is trying to convey. In VF, every Intent (in this case) is linked to both an actor and to a resource specification (thing, service, money, etc.) So an actor providing a service is pretty much the same as an actor providing a thing, at the vocabulary level. But maybe you are thinking of something that I’m missing?
If payment link is used, its rel array MUST contain the string https://w3id.org/valueflows/Proposal
I understand this to be the destination (wallet, account, etc.) where you can send the payment later when you make it? In any case, it seems like it should link to the Intent to transfer the money, the Proposal is too broad. I’m also wondering how the Proposal looks with its payment link in the json-ld, is it separate or embedded in the Proposal object in some way?
Or maybe it is just linked to the Actor, and all payments get sent to the same place?
Responding to a proposal
I’m struggling with this a bit. I actually tend to think of the original Proposal as conceptually an offer in the context of a marketplace, represented by the primary Intent. And then the response might have to often include both how many the buyer wants of the primary Intent resource, and maybe how much they want to pay, if that is negotiable. So that’s 2 possible Commitments. If it’s not negotiable, then that can get calculated out by the seller, and the response only needs to be how many do they want of what was offered on the original proposal, which doesn’t seem like an offer.
In terms of the activity type Offer, it seems like one of those things that doesn’t fit in the list very well. But that’s maybe just me, and I don’t have experience with AP/AS beyond reading the specs a bunch of times. Or maybe we add Request and try to get it into AS? But I still feel basically like Create, Update, Delete are the basic activities. Accept and Reject also seem useful. They all are more about the messaging mechanisms, not mixing in object-like content. Just an opinion.
If the response is a Commitment (or two), I wonder if the response should be a whole Agreement? Which can be accepted or rejected.
To me, it feels more like a Commitment if it is like an “order”, the assumption is you can have what you order, even if occasionally you can’t, and you’ll basically pay the asking price. But if you are negotiating price, it feels more like another Intent, and more like an offer. Hmmm.
In my application there’s mechanism for supporting authors via recurrent donations, and I’d like to use Proposals to coordinate payments between servers.
This is interesting. If I just read this, I don’t think Proposals. I just think about making donations directly, in VF an EconomicEvent. Or would the proposals be from the authors asking for recurring donations? Maybe reciprocal for some specific writing they are doing? Similar to a developer asking for donations for an app they are working on? Would an author ever reject a donation?