- From: ☮ elf Pavlik ☮ <perpetual-tripper@wwelves.org>
- Date: Sat, 01 Nov 2014 20:30:36 +0100
- To: James M Snell <jasnell@gmail.com>
- CC: public-socialweb@w3.org
On 11/01/2014 07:51 PM, James M Snell wrote: > Can you provide a bit more detail as to why? Based on our conversation in github issue: https://github.com/jasnell/w3c-socialwg-activitystreams/issues/24 My biggest concern relates to your comment there about: "Yes, it's essentially a qualified relation. The difference, however, is that in as:Link, the @id is overloaded to provide both the @id of the node and the target of the Link." https://github.com/jasnell/w3c-socialwg-activitystreams/issues/24#issuecomment-58056159 Which I understand that you try to use same @id for two different resources (two nodes in a graph). While at the same time I see in the example-15 included in latest draft a single resource (single node in a graph) simply having two types "@type": ["http://www.w3.org/ns/activitystreams#Link", "urn:example:image"] I also see it quite confusing to use properties describing a resource of type for example Image (hight, width, mediaType) on as:Link and not directly on this ex:Image. I just posted another comment on github: https://github.com/jasnell/w3c-socialwg-activitystreams/issues/24#issuecomment-61375100 To my understanding, you attempt here to combine RFC 5988 Link Relation and Linked Data. While I do recognize and appreciate creativity you put into it. In it current state I see it mostly adding extra complexity and increases possibility of confusions arising. Most of all I really don't see use case where we would need to introduce such construct. Currently I see it as one of the features motivated by compatibility with AS1. Do wee need it for anything else? BTW I also just posted question about it to semantic-web http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/semantic-web/2014Nov/0002.html
Received on Saturday, 1 November 2014 19:32:46 UTC