Re: Remove "rel" from Link

On Mon, Nov 3, 2014 at 10:12 AM, James M Snell <jasnell@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Mon, Nov 3, 2014 at 9:57 AM, Robert Sanderson <azaroth42@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> > -1 on removing the functionality, +1 on exploring how else it might be
> > represented
>
>
> "rel" is essentially establishes a qualified relationship. The
> predicate can be used just as easily.


Yup, +1 to using relationships when you mean a relationship. Though it
makes the context document potentially very long if all of the rels are
imported, and introduces a source of potential collision as per dret's
mail.  That could be solved (to a certain extent) by freezing the set of
rels that are available whenever the context document is changed, or by
using a prefix.

{
>   "preview": {
>     "@type": "as:Link",
>     "@id": "http://example.org/foo"
>   }
> }
>

This still says that the image is a Link (hooray Open World) which is
weird, in my opinion.  If everything can be a Link, then it doesn't really
make any useful assertion.



> The other alternative approach is to use a true qualified relationship
> model with an intermediate object (using "url" or "href" to identify
> the linked resource instead of "@id")
>
> {
>   "image": {
>     "@type": "as:Link",
>     "rel": "preview",
>     "href": "http://example.org/foo"
>   }
> }
> (note the lack of @id)
>

Indeed. This is reifying the relationship to a blank node, where subject is
the parent object, the predicate is in rel and the object in href.

As with any reification ... is it necessary above and beyond a real,
simpler, relationship?


I'm good with whichever way the WG decides. I just know that the
> current definition doesn't work the way it's currently modeled.
>

Agreed! :)

Rob



>> On Mon, Nov 3, 2014 at 9:36 AM, ☮ elf Pavlik ☮
> >> <perpetual-tripper@wwelves.org> wrote:
> >> > On 11/03/2014 06:14 PM, James M Snell wrote:
> >> >> The "rel" property added to the as:Link is problematic from a data
> >> >> modeling point of view, and actually isn't as useful as one might
> >> >> imagine in practice.
> >> >>
> >> >> Based on the current definition of as:Link, here's how it would
> >> >> currently be used:
> >> >>
> >> >> {
> >> >>   "@context": "http://asjsonld.mybluemix.net",
> >> >>   "image": {
> >> >>     "@type": "as:Link",
> >> >>     "@id": "http://example.org/foo",
> >> >>     "rel": "preview"
> >> >>   }
> >> >> }
> >> >>
> >> >> Those familiar with the JSON-LD processing model ought to see the
> >> >> problem right away. The "rel" is actually supposed to be a qualified
> >> >> relation of the containing object, but as it is defined here, it
> >> >> becomes a property of the as:Link itself.
> >> >>
> >> >> In any case, despite the modeling issues, the "rel" just isn't
> proving
> >> >> to be very valuable in any case I can identify.
> >> >>
> >> >> My proposal is just to remove it.
> >> > +1
> >> >
> >> > in this case, do we have any other reason to keep as:Link?
> >> >
> >> > IMO JSON-LD embedding provides us with all we need to include
> statements
> >> > about objects used as property values
> >> >
> >> > http://www.w3.org/TR/json-ld/#embedding
> >> >
> >>
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > Rob Sanderson
> > Technology Collaboration Facilitator
> > Digital Library Systems and Services
> > Stanford, CA 94305
>



-- 
Rob Sanderson
Technology Collaboration Facilitator
Digital Library Systems and Services
Stanford, CA 94305