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 <[email protected]> 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 <[email protected]> > To: > [email protected] > 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
