Re: Remove "rel" from Link

On Mon, Nov 3, 2014 at 10:25 AM, Robert Sanderson <azaroth42@gmail.com> wrote:
>
[snip]
>
>> {
>>   "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.
>

Correct. In an earlier version of AS 2.0, as:Link did not exist.
Everything was basically just objects. In Activity Streams 1.0,
however, there was a notion of a thing called a "Media Link", which
looked like an object but did not inherit all of the properties of
as:Object. The feedback I received then from some implementers is that
we needed to maintain this distinct notion of a Link (which I do not
necessarily agree with). If we can drop as:Link, then I'll still be
happy.

Either way, there's still a challenge with "rel". I'd rather not reify
the qualified relationship as illustrated below. *If* someone wants
to, they can simply declare a new property that identifies the
relationship (which is consistent with AS 1.0). If we were going with
a purely JSON processing model, the "rel" would be fine, but it just
doesn't work in the JSON-LD world view.

- James

>
>>
>> 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

Received on Monday, 3 November 2014 18:38:28 UTC