Conversation

Notices

1. Embed this notice
   Steve Bate (steve@social.technoetic.com)'s status on Friday, 13-Sep-2024 05:59:07 JST Steve Bate

   • Evan Prodromou

   @nik What's this well-defined RDFS vocabulary (vs the normative JSON-LD context)? Do you mean the non-normative (and non-maintained) AS2 OWL ontology? A JSON Schema definition could define constraints that can be used for plain JSON message validation (and developer documentation) for specific AP interoperability domains (microblogging, forums, online markets, etc.). And it would be useful for non-RDF (plain JSON) consumers given AP is primarily intended to be used in that context (per @evan ).

   • Embed this notice
     Evan Prodromou (evan@cosocial.ca)'s status on Friday, 13-Sep-2024 05:59:03 JST Evan Prodromou

     in reply to

     @steve @nik I think the OWL ontology is probably the best alternative for people who need more structure than JSON-LD context documents give. It's non-normative but it's already part of the spec.

   • Embed this notice
     Evan Prodromou (evan@cosocial.ca)'s status on Friday, 13-Sep-2024 21:27:05 JST Evan Prodromou

     in reply to

     @steve @nik so, your recommendation is to develop and maintain a whole new schema rather than maintaining the one we have now.

   • Embed this notice
     Steve Bate (steve@social.technoetic.com)'s status on Friday, 13-Sep-2024 21:27:06 JST Steve Bate

     in reply to

     • Evan Prodromou

     @evan @nik Using the OWL Ontology for validation is not ideal for multiple reasons. 1) It's not maintained, 2) it's not complete (only AS2, no AP), 3) it's not fully consistent with normative AS2, 4) it requires RDF, which requires JSON-LD processing of AP messages, 5) if you want message validation, you'll need write code to do something that already exists (SHACL, ShEx). I recommend JSON Schema for plain JSON applications.