Re: Remove "rel" from Link

On 11/04/2014 12:45 AM, Owen Shepherd wrote:
>> ☮ elf Pavlik ☮ <>
>> 03 November 2014 18:17
>> I still don't understand, for example in
>> {
>>   "@context": "",
>>   "@type": "",
>>   "@id": "",
>>   "displayName": "My Application",
>>   "image": {
>>     "@id": "",
>>     "@type": "urn:example:image",
>>     "mediaType": "image/png"
>>   }
>> }
>> We don't need as:Link here, of course we can add it to "@type" just to
>> hint it as dereferencable. If we want to add additional information
>> besides just using "@id" as value, we already need to use embeded
>> object. Of course we can embed only as much of known to us properties as
>> we want to (not sure what exactly you meant by "do not need to be
>> represented as complete objects".)
>> I think we can define rdfs:range of "image", "icon" and "url" simply as
>> as:Object.
> So, the reason I initially objected to complete unification of "Objects"
> and "Media Links" from AS1, and the reason I continue to do so, is that
> they continue to be semantically different objects in the social graph
> To consider the two most popular social silos for a moment, and a case
> of where they treat things very differently:
>   * On Facebook, your profile picture is an Image in the same sense as
>     any other Image you upload. When you click on it in the web UI, it
>     opens up the underlying Image object, and you can interact with it
>     as with any other object in your social graph - you can like it, you
>     can share it, you can comment on it, etc
>   * On Twitter, your profile picture is a "dead image". It is not an
>     object in the social graph.
> Another example: If I upload a video, then the video itself is a live
> object in my social graph. That video has an image (presumably a still
> image of one of the frames or some other placeholder content that will
> be displayed before I click play). That image shouldn't be a live object
> in the social graph, because it is integrally bound to my video.
> The use cases are subtly different, but I don't think the difference is
> insurmountable. We need to do a few things:
>  1. Distinguish the use case of "embeddable media" and the usecase of
>     "link relations". If we are to keep the latter, that is a separate
>     matter (and links should retain the as:Link name)
>  2. The basic, non-social-graph media data is typed as as:Media. This
>     object SHOULD NOT have a global ID. It will have various properties
>     pointing at the media and covering its' content type, but shouldn't
>     have any descriptive properties IMO (its purely an augmentation of
>     the containing object)
>  3. Media which is an interactable social graph object is an
>     as:MediaObject, which is a sublass of as:Object and as:Media.
>     as:MediaObject should be considered an "abstract type"; objects
>     SHOULD be typed as some subclass of as:MediaObject
>  4. as:Image, as:Video, as:Audio, etc, become subclasses of as:MediaObject
I'll need to chew on the rest of your message little longer, meanwhile I
would like to ask your opinion on how tries to model
MediaObject with:


For example

  "@context": "",
  "@type": "Photograph",
  "@id": "",
  "about": "",
  "author": "",
  "associatedMedia": [
      "@type": "ImageObject",
      "width": "600"
      "thumbnail": {
        "@type": "ImageObject",
        "width": "100"

please note our favorite *thumbnail* :D

Received on Tuesday, 4 November 2014 00:04:26 UTC