Activities, two ways of modelling, desired, necessary?

[Habennin]

There is a shared pattern description for activities here:

https://linked.art/api/1.0/shared/activity/

And it lists a pretty comprehensive list of things you might say about an activity. Awesome. And it is meant as the suggested list of things that can be modelled on an activity that is documented in the scope of another model (not independently). This is how I read it.

So, "for all patterns within a model that would be an activity apply this shape."

Then we have provenance activity model:

https://linked.art/api/1.0/endpoint/provenance_activity/#properties-of-all-parts

And Provenance Activity model is a shibboleth model that carries many activities within it. The activities are parts of the model and are not documented independently. So I feel like they fall under the interpretation: "for all patterns within a model that would be an activity apply this shape," however as seen above there is another guideline for those parts.

The property lists of the common attributes of an activity do not match. Should we align these? Or if they are non aligned in a motivated/intentional way, make a cross reference between them to point out that in fact they are slightly different?

[azaroth42]

Yes, the "common activity features" in the provenance endpoint should just point to the shared activity pattern, and then have the additional relationships per specific class below (as it does).