Introduce type hierarchy, range and domain in section 4
Nobody has claimed this yet.
- Dominant language
- HTML
- Stars
- 313
- Forks
- 70
- PR merge metrics
- No merged PRs in 30d
Description
Section 4 "Model" introduces the idea of a type hierarchy with this section:
Every JSON object in an Activity Streams 2.0 document is either an Object or a Link. All other types defined in the Activity Vocabulary, as well as all extension types, are derived from these two base types.
This is not clear to someone seeing a Note in an AS2 document, unless they understand that a Note is a kind of Object, and that everything that is a Note is also an Object.
Does it make sense, in this section, to reference the OWL class structure as the way that AS2 types and properties relate to each other?
Contributor guide
No contributing guide indexed for this repository
First steps
- Read the whole issue, then the project's contributing guide.
- Comment on the issue to say you are picking it up — it saves two people doing the same work.
- Fork the repository and make your change on a branch.
- Open a pull request that references the issue number.
Research direction
Start with Section 4, “Model,” and the linked Activity Streams definitions for Object and Link. Compare the current explanation with the OWL class structure and determine whether the section needs a clearer account of type hierarchy, range, and domain; done means an agreed documentation change that makes the relationship between Note and Object understandable.
Written by the indexing model from the issue text.
Assessment
- Domain
- documentation
- Issue type
- Documentation
- Difficulty
- 5/5
- Estimated time
- Over a week
- Activity status
- Quiet
- Clarity
- Needs clarification
- Newbie friendliness
- 35/100