- From: James M Snell <jasnell@gmail.com>
- Date: Tue, 4 Nov 2014 12:00:18 -0800
- To: "public-socialweb@w3.org" <public-socialweb@w3.org>
Based on the discussion, it seems we definitely need another pass at as:Link. The qualified relationship model appears to be the most agreed upon model so far. Basically, the only material change that would be required is the introduction of a new term (as:href ?) that would point to the linked resource rather than using @id. We would keep "as:rel" So looking at the options, A. { "image": "http://www.example.org/foo.jpg" } B. { "image": { "@type": "as:Link", "href": "http://www.example.org/foo.jpg", "mediaType": "image/jpeg" } } In A, we have a direct, unqualified relationship. In B, we have an indirect, qualified relationship. Both are allowed. In A, the normalized output would be: _:c14n0 <as:image> <http://www.example.org/foo.jpg> . In B, the normalized output would be: _:c14n0 <as:image> _:c14n1 . _:c14n1 <rdf:type> <as:Link> . _:c14n1 <as:href> "http://www.example.org/foo.jpg" . _:c14n1 <as:mediaType> "image/jpeg" . This treats as:Link more like the Activity Streams 1.0 MediaLink as opposed to some hybrid object and avoids overloading @id. It allows us to keep "as:rel". A more detailed example: { "@id": "urn:example:movies:1", "@type": "urn:example:types:Video", "displayName": "A Video", "url": [ { "@type": "as:Link", "href": "http://example.org/movie.mpg", "mediaType": "video/mpeg" }, { "@type": "as:Link", "href": "http://example.org/movie.mkv", "mediaType": "video/mkv" } ], "image": { "@type": "as:Link", "href": "http://example.org/img/movie.jpg", "mediaType": "image/jpeg", "rel": "preview" } } - James
Received on Tuesday, 4 November 2014 20:01:06 UTC