Re: The OWL file

It depends on how much one intend to go in deep. For example, I already 
produced some constraints that describe membership and paging of 
collection, but I have been unable to envisage a model theoretic 
semantics for the activity ADD and REMOVE as it would require to 
represent the time ordering of activity of this type.

On 20/03/25 19:51, Melvin Carvalho wrote:
>
>
> čt 20. 3. 2025 v 19:39 odesílatel Cristiano Longo 
> <cristianolongo@opendatahacklab.org> napsal:
>
>     Thank you very much, I fond this that is really specific
>
>     https://nlnet.nl/opensocial/
>
>     However just 50K euro will be funded, so that just one or two
>     person would be involved.
>
>     Now I have to understand if, in the case I got this grant, how I
>     should interact with the official Activity Pub charter.
>
>     However, on monday I'll have a meeting at my university to discuss
>     about this grant and other opportunities.
>
>
> Unsure making an OWL file would be alot of effort.  I would imagine a 
> perfect professional document costing in the range of 5k, and could be 
> done in a few weeks.
>
>     CL
>
>     On 18/03/25 09:53, Melvin Carvalho wrote:
>>
>>
>>     út 18. 3. 2025 v 9:27 odesílatel Cristiano Longo
>>     <cristianolongo@opendatahacklab.org> napsal:
>>
>>         I'm going to look for any funding for this. Any suggestion
>>         about an appropriate funding source and scheme will be
>>         appreciated. Also, proposals for collaborations with other
>>         institutions are welcome.
>>
>>
>>     I would recommend NLNet, they are very generous with funding:
>>
>>     https://nlnet.nl/propose/
>>
>>         CL
>>
>>         On 04/10/24 10:11, Melvin Carvalho wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>         pá 4. 10. 2024 v 10:03 odesílatel Cristiano Longo
>>>         <cristianolongo@opendatahacklab.org> napsal:
>>>
>>>             The OWL file have to be mantained and enriched, as
>>>             reported in
>>>             https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-swicg/2023Dec/0014.html
>>>
>>>             I don't know if it is appropriate that the community
>>>             group work on this.
>>>             And, if so, I'm not sure if this should be mentioned in
>>>             the document
>>>             under discussion or it could emerge later as a work item.
>>>
>>>             I'm sorry but I cannot attend the today meeting.
>>>
>>>         It’s the machine-readable vocabulary for ActivityPub. Could
>>>         we perhaps just call it the *Schema*, *Vocab*, or *Ontology*
>>>         for ActivityPub, instead of "OWL"? OWL stands for Ontology
>>>         Web Language, and that’s a bit less intuitive for most folks.
>>>
>>>         In the linked data world, a schema is essential, and it
>>>         should be referenced in the context. The context itself
>>>         isn’t meant for definitions—it’s more of an intermediary
>>>         between the specific JSON format (or "profile") and the schema.
>>>
>>>         There was quite a bit of work done on the schema during the
>>>         Working Group, but at some point, the link to it seems to
>>>         have been broken—intentionally or not. I think it would be a
>>>         valuable task to restore that connection and make the
>>>         ActivityPub schema fully compliant with W3C standards again.
>>>
>>>
>>>             CL
>>>
>>>             On 08/12/23 17:38, Evan Prodromou wrote:
>>>             > The original development file for AS2 was an OWL file.
>>>             >
>>>             > I don't think it was ever edited after James Snell
>>>             created the first
>>>             > JSON-LD context file.
>>>             >
>>>             > But it's been in the Activity Streams 2.0 repository
>>>             on GitHub since
>>>             > it was created.
>>>             >
>>>             > We get occasional requests to make changes to it to
>>>             bring it into line
>>>             > with the JSON-LD context doc. Some LinkedData
>>>             developers seem to
>>>             > prefer using it.
>>>             >
>>>             > We had a new issue filed this week about it, and on
>>>             the issue triage
>>>             > call we came up with a novel solution: move the file
>>>             to its own
>>>             > repository in the SWICG namespace, and let people who
>>>             are interested
>>>             > in using and maintaining it work on the project.
>>>             >
>>>             > The new repository is here:
>>>             >
>>>             > https://github.com/swicg/activitystreams2-owl
>>>             >
>>>             > Big appreciation to Emelia Smith for getting the
>>>             process rolling.
>>>             > We've already had one PR applied.
>>>             >
>>>             > I had removed the file from the w3c/activitystreams
>>>             repo, but Ben
>>>             > Goering pointed out that it probably needed more
>>>             consensus and a
>>>             > discussion here.
>>>             >
>>>             > So, let's discuss!
>>>             >
>>>             > I'd love to see this unofficial file maintained and
>>>             updated. I think
>>>             > moving it to a repo where people in the LD community
>>>             can maintain it
>>>             > is a great solution.
>>>             >
>>>             > Evan
>>>             >
>>>             >
>>>