Re: Remove "rel" from Link

On Mon, Nov 3, 2014 at 9:57 AM, Robert Sanderson <azaroth42@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>[snip]
>>
>> 2. As the value for properties like "image", "icon" and "url" which
>> may need additional metadata specified but do not need to be
>> represented as complete objects. (they play essentially the same role
>> as the MediaLink in AS 1.0).
>
>
> I'm not sure that there's much of a distinction in JSON-LD.
>
> -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. So instead of:

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

We'd have:

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

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)

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.

- James

> Rob
>
>
>>
>> I'm definitely -1 on removing as:Link.
>> - James
>>
>> 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

Received on Monday, 3 November 2014 18:13:41 UTC