AS2-Vocab: "Core" vs "Extended" properties mentioned but not actualized

[trwnh]

The vocabulary is defined in two parts:

1. A Core set of properties describing the generalized structure of an Activity; and
2. An Extended set of properties that cover specific types of Activities and Artifacts common to many social Web application systems.

But we only have one section "Properties" which doesn't make this distinction.

I think the distinction isn't actually very useful in the first place, but that's a separate issue.

Related:

• Define the difference between core types and extended types #758 covers "core vs extended" for "types" instead of "properties".

[TallTed]

Is the "Core set" the minimum implementation to be useful?
Is the "Extended set" a collection of "nice to haves"?

That seems a useful distinction, and it seems that the "x. Properties" section should simply be split into subsections for "x.1. Core Properties" and "x.2. Extended Properties".

[trwnh]

No, there is no processing model currently defined, so there is no "minimum implementation". All properties exist with the same standing. I have no idea how you'd even begin to decide which properties are "core" and which ones are "extended". It's already quite nonsensical for types, but it makes no sense whatsoever for properties.

[TallTed]

I see, there is no existing list of these two categories; they're perhaps leftovers from a frequent qualification in similar specs. On that basis, yes, I would say the "core" and "extended" labels should be removed, and all should be listed at the same level.

[evanp]

I think if I were to try to define what "core" properties are, I'd say that they are the properties defined on the "core" types. So, for example, the properties of Object, Link, and maybe Activity.

The main value of this distinction to me is that we have a pattern of using the core properties in different ways for different applications, such as using the name property for a Person's personal name as well as for the title of an Article. It is an architectural tendency more than a rule, but might be worth calling out.

That said, I think it would be fine to just strip this text, too.