Re: activitystreams vs activity?

[Mark D Weitzel <we...@us.ibm.com>]

Franck,

Please keep in mind several things regarding activity streams:
* ActivityStrea.ms is a work in progress. It has not released any stable 
version of a spec.
* There are IP concerns around the specification that is being developed. 
It's unclear, for example, if everyone that has contributed to 
ActivityStrea.ms has agreed to a non-assert. Further, it's not clear if 
what they, as individuals are doing, is binding to the organization to 
which they work. It's possible, then, for activity streams to be 
implemented and a company who employes a person that worked on activity 
streams, e.g. Google, Microsoft, Facebook, to assert a patent.

The motivation for doing an emerging prototype in OpenSocial and Shindig 
is to understand how the current activities and activity streams line up, 
to ensure we can describe any issues that we uncover back to that working 
group, and to provide an example implementation for interop. At this 
point, given the concerns above, I would not recommend building off of 
Activity Streams. I'd recommend that you start with Activities. Then, at 
some point in the future, when the spec incorporates activity streams, the 
move should be easy.

-Mark W.



From:
franck tankoua <ft...@gmail.com>
To:
dev@shindig.apache.org
Date:
05/29/2010 03:07 PM
Subject:
activitystreams vs activity?



Hi All,

I just saw the new ActivityStream implementation and I am willing to use
that since it matches more what I would expect from an activity.
When Designing my Database I wanted to use attributes like "target" ,
"object" , "verb" etc.

I wanted to know if you think I will be wrong trying to get rid of 
Activity
to adopt only the activityStream?

Regards

-- 
Franck

Re: activitystreams vs activity?

[franck tankoua <ft...@gmail.com>]

Hello Mark.

Thanks a lot for your inputs. I think I will stick to my current design with
Activities then.

Regards

On Tue, Jun 1, 2010 at 2:56 PM, Mark D Weitzel <we...@us.ibm.com> wrote:

> Franck,
>
> Please keep in mind several things regarding activity streams:
> * ActivityStrea.ms is a work in progress. It has not released any stable
> version of a spec.
> * There are IP concerns around the specification that is being developed.
> It's unclear, for example, if everyone that has contributed to
> ActivityStrea.ms has agreed to a non-assert. Further, it's not clear if
> what they, as individuals are doing, is binding to the organization to
> which they work. It's possible, then, for activity streams to be
> implemented and a company who employes a person that worked on activity
> streams, e.g. Google, Microsoft, Facebook, to assert a patent.
>
> The motivation for doing an emerging prototype in OpenSocial and Shindig
> is to understand how the current activities and activity streams line up,
> to ensure we can describe any issues that we uncover back to that working
> group, and to provide an example implementation for interop. At this
> point, given the concerns above, I would not recommend building off of
> Activity Streams. I'd recommend that you start with Activities. Then, at
> some point in the future, when the spec incorporates activity streams, the
> move should be easy.
>
> -Mark W.
>
>
>
> From:
> franck tankoua <ft...@gmail.com>
> To:
> dev@shindig.apache.org
> Date:
> 05/29/2010 03:07 PM
> Subject:
> activitystreams vs activity?
>
>
>
> Hi All,
>
> I just saw the new ActivityStream implementation and I am willing to use
> that since it matches more what I would expect from an activity.
> When Designing my Database I wanted to use attributes like "target" ,
> "object" , "verb" etc.
>
> I wanted to know if you think I will be wrong trying to get rid of
> Activity
> to adopt only the activityStream?
>
> Regards
>
> --
> Franck
>
>
>


-- 
Franck