- From: Owen Shepherd <owen.shepherd@e43.eu>
- Date: Sat, 08 Nov 2014 00:06:45 +0000
- To: Markus Lanthaler <markus.lanthaler@gmx.net>
- CC: public-socialweb@w3.org
- Message-ID: <545D5E95.6010709@e43.eu>
> Markus Lanthaler <mailto:markus.lanthaler@gmx.net>
> 07 November 2014 19:41
>
> I think the crucial thing here is that we get rid of the "rel"
> property and use "proper" properties and types instead. The
> representation above makes it quite clear what the value of "image" is
> and why it is there. I expect people to struggle to understand why you
> would use
>
I am completely agreed on the removal of rel. Direct properties are
preferable.
However, there is a very good reason for something like "as:Link", even
if I am opposed to the over-general name, and that is the fact that
there are two types of media:
* There are those which are not "Social objects" themselves. Think of
the video attached to a news story, or the image at the top of a
newspaper article. These are not distinct things - you cannot
comment on them individually, for example; you must comment on their
containing story.
* There are those which are "Social objects". When you upload a video
or image to your social stream, that should be a social object. You
can comment on the video, like it, share it, etc.
So there are two cases:
1. A post's "image" member points to just an image file. It is an
accompanying image, not a social object itself.
2. A post's "image" member points to an image social object.
So the former is a blank node with a member pointing at the real object,
because that signifies "this really is a component of its' parent
object" as opposed to "this is a distinct object in its' own right", and
the latter is a node with a URI, which hopefully points at the place I
can grab an up-to-date AS2 document describing the office (this
"hopefully" is expanded to a MUST in the ActivityPump submission I
posted, except for certain special cases)
This also protects provenance, because I don't want photos morphing into
movies in my database because two people described the same URI
differently. The use of blank nodes prevents that. (ActivityPump defines
a mechanism for ensuring provenance, but it relies upon object IDs being
dereferencable to get a canonical version)
You can find my suggestion here:
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-socialweb/2014Nov/0031.html
Its' a relatively concise, compact specification. It does the smallest
thing which can work. It makes both cases have the same structure - just
the object case has an ID (defining the object) and possibly comes with
a few more properties.
I think currently we have an overgeneral solution which doesn't mesh
with the needs of the smaller problem domain to which it actually applies.
- Owen
Received on Saturday, 8 November 2014 00:07:23 UTC