It's always interesting to see the same concept approached from two very different directions. Here we have a short post from Clark Quin describing how he is currently creating an activity map (he says, "Whether a course, or interactive ebook, or whatever, I want to create a flow. And I realized an activity map might make sense. I haven’t done this before (I’ve used storyboards and diagrams)"). By contrast, I was also looking at the W3C's "activity vocabulary" this morning; it's intended to be used with activity streams "and provides a foundational vocabulary for activity structures, and specific activity types." Contrasting the two, I see that Quinn's matrix is laden with semantical terms - 'emotions', 'stories', 'tools' - that may or may not be relevant, while the W3C focuses more on structure, with the only real semantics being the inclusion of 'intransitive actions'.