Re: **PROPOSED** AS2 spec update

Again, I'm not seeing how any of this is any better than as:Link. The
way things are currently defined, if you really want to use
schema.org/MediaObject, then go for it, there's nothing in the current
definition that would stop you. Not every implementer is going to want
to use schema.org/MediaObject, however, and I'm failing to see any
reason why we should require them to do so. The as:Link provides a
generalized qualified relationship to some other arbitrary resource.
So far, I haven't seen any explanation why as:Link as currently
defined is inadequate. More below...

On Fri, Nov 7, 2014 at 5:06 AM, ☮ elf Pavlik ☮
<perpetual-tripper@wwelves.org> wrote:
[snip]
>
> {
>   "@context": [
>     "http://www.w3.org/ns/activitystreams",
>     { "schema": "http://schema.org" }
>   ],
>   "@type": "schema:VideoObject",
>   "@id": "https://vimeo.com/110256895",
>   "contentUrl": "http://pdl.vimeocdn.com/21272/422/301704778.mp4",
>   "potentialAction": ["ReactAction", "CommentAction"],
>   "schema:thumbnail": [
>     {
>       "@type": "schema:ImageObject",
>       "schema:contentUrl": "https://i.vimeocdn.com/video/494438088_960.jpg",
>       "schema:contentEncoding": "jpeg",
>       "schema:width": 960,
>       "schema:height": 540
>     },
>     {
>       "@type": "schema:ImageObject",
>       "schema:contentUrl": "https://i.vimeocdn.com/video/494438088_960.jpg",
>       "schema:contentEncoding": "jpeg",
>       "schema:width": 1200,
>       "schema:height": 720
>     }
>   ]
> }
>
> We still don't have clear way to provide information about multiple
> encodings available. This could offer one of possible ways to do it:
>

Sure we do. I've illustrated this several times already. Using this
slightly revised model it would be:

{
  "@context": "http://www.w3.org/ns/activitystreams",
  "@type": "urn:example:video",
  "displayName": "A Video",
  "url": [
    {
      "@type": "as:Link",
      "mediaType": "video/mpeg",
      "href": "http://example.org/video.mpg"
    },
    {
      "@type": "as:Link",
      "mediaType": "video/mkv",
      "href": "http://example.org/video.mkv"
    }
  ]
}

Yes, this takes a more generalized view than the schema.org model
takes, but that's actually a good thing (taking a more generalized
view has been a design goal of Activity Streams from the outset). If
you want to use the more specific schema.org model, there's nothing
stopping you from doing so but I see absolutely no reason to bake that
more specific model into the Activity Vocabulary.

- James

> {
>   "@context": [
>     "http://www.w3.org/ns/activitystreams",
>     { "schema": "http://schema.org" }
>   ],
>   "@type": "schema:Clip",
>   "@id": "https://vimeo.com/110256895",
>   "potentialAction": ["ReactAction", "CommentAction"],
>   "schema:thumbnail": [
>     {
>       "@type": "schema:ImageObject",
>       "schema:contentUrl": "https://i.vimeocdn.com/video/494438088_960.jpg",
>       "schema:encodingFormat": "jpeg",
>       "schema:width": 960,
>       "schema:height": 540
>     },
>     {
>       "@type": "schema:ImageObject",
>       "schema:contentUrl": "https://i.vimeocdn.com/video/494438088_960.jpg",
>       "schema:contentEncoding": "jpeg",
>       "schema:width": 1200,
>       "schema:height": 720
>     }
>   ],
>   "schema:encoding": [
>     {
>       "@type": "VideoObject",
>       "schema:contentUrl": "http://pdl.vimeocdn.com/21272/422/301704778.mp4"
>       "schema:contentEncoding": "mp4"
>       "schema:duration": "PT1M50S"
>     },
>     {
>       "@type": "VideoObject",
>       "schema:contentUrl": "http://pdl.vimeocdn.com/21272/422/301704778.ogv"
>       "schema:contentEncoding": "ogv"
>       "schema:duration": "PT1M50S"
>     }
>   ]
> }
>
> Having such distinction between CreativeWork and MediaObject encoding
> it, we could directly use @id instead of schema:contentUrl which again
> gives us blank nodes for resources which do have obvious identifiers.

Received on Friday, 7 November 2014 17:36:00 UTC