This is more of a thought than a finished idea. I might turn it into a more formal FEP at one point. Basically, a standard problem when organizing data is that one adds flags for all kinds of stuff. This is fine when one starts, but degrades quickly as one needs to be careful of what flag means what, what is the syntax of the flag, and so on …
For example fep/fep-5624.md at main - fep - Codeberg.org introduces a toot:canReply flag. We already have an as:sensitive flag, that changes the meaning of summary. We might see an toot:discoverable flag on posts to decide if a post can be indexed, and so on …
A different approach would be to collect these things under tag, e.g.
I don’t really understand what a flag is. In the example it is an [array of] tags.
Tags are keywords without context, so actually without meaning.
I never really understood the meaning behind tags So I welcome the idea of giving tags a meaning.
Does the owl for ‘canReply’ maybe looks like that?
@prefix rdfs: <http://www.w3.org/2000/01/rdf-schema#>.
@prefix rdf: <http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#>.
@prefix : <http://joinmastodon.org/ns#>.
rdfs:comment "Array of actors, that are able to reply to an xyz";
I agree that this can be a risk. However, I don’t see how putting these in the tags collection will help with that. The AS2 spec describes a “tag” as an Object with an implied association by reference. Even with that loose definition, it doesn’t appear to be a good match for some of the kinds of data you are thinking of putting there.
Given the lack of a formal ontology for AP/AS2, written documentation is the likely alternative for defining flag meaning and syntax.
This is a problem. But instead of a “written documentation”, why not a formal ontology ? A “written documentation” will never be as accurate as a formal ontology. And therefore there will always be misunderstandings.
Yes, I started by trying to use that one but it’s broken in ways that made it useless for my purposes. I don’t remember the details but it didn’t load into Protégé or the OWL library I was using. If I remember correctly, it was also not completely consistent with the informal ontology in the specification. The ontology in my repo is based on that one, with fixes and adding the Mastodon toot ontology.
ok. weekly Evan has been leading session going through issues on the activitystreams and activitypub issue trackers, so if you believe it is broken, one way of verifying that hypothesis would be to seek peer review by filing an issue there.
I was curious why you scraped the spec web page instead of using that 2016 ontology for your project.
what’s the point of doing this? it seems like it would just provide an unnecessary level of nesting while also violating the meaning of tag. if you want to define a property then define an actual property and put it on the graph node.