- 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