- 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