Re: Issue-14: as:Link complexity

Elf Pavlik,

I strenuously object to removing this element.

The intent is to allow mapping IETF-style link-relations into Activity 
Streams. For AS1, pump.io at least uses the link elements quite a bit.

http://www.iana.org/assignments/link-relations/link-relations.xhtml

One thing I like is that you can map the same link relations into e.g. 
<a> or <meta> tags in HTML, Link: headers in HTTP, Webfinger, and in 
Activity Streams.

As our social API develops, it's likely that these different sources of 
data will be used to discover structured information about a user or 
content object. For example, pump.io uses the "activity-inbox" and 
"activity-outbox" relation types to discover the activity streams inbox 
and outbox URLs for a user.

Some link relations, like "self", are really useful for tracking down 
the source of an AS object so you can get more information.

James, do you think we could use a different example than a linked image 
in the AS 2.0 doc so it's clearer what we're trying to do?

-Evan

On 2015-04-19 05:48 AM, ☮ elf Pavlik ☮ wrote:
> On 04/13/2015 05:52 PM, James M Snell wrote:
>> Issue-14 claims that as:Link adds to much complexity. Unfortunately,
>> it doesn't explain why. Elf has brought this up in a few discussions
>> but so far, he's the only one that seems to be raising objections on
>> it. The argument against it is vague and seems to be purely academic
>> and I recommend simply closing the issue unless there is clear
>> consensus that the existing definition of as:Link is actually a
>> problem *in practice*.
> Hi James,
>
> I started pull request which includes first commits which remove as:Link
> from examples in core spec. We could discuss it there on concrete
> examples why you see need for using it over conventional JSON-LD
> embedding. It also has diagram illustrating on of the main issues I find
> with it.
> https://github.com/jasnell/w3c-socialwg-activitystreams/pull/98
>
> Please notice that you and Evan didn't reply to various questions I
> asked on a mailing list thread automatically created for ISSUE-14 the
> tracker
> * https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-socialweb/2015Mar/0062.html
> * https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-socialweb/2015Mar/0202.html
> * https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-socialweb/2015Apr/0009.html
>
> We can have more concrete discussion once we get all examples from specs
> properly available in JSON-LD Playground. I will also continue drawing
> diagrams for those examples so we can see better graphs we construct.
> Some early diagrams I already shared in
> * https://github.com/jasnell/w3c-socialwg-activitystreams/issues/99
>
> If we want to see some problem *in practice*, let's start adding to test
> suite, for each case in which whenever vocab allows both as:Object and
> as:Link, we create tests for *both* possible variants. But if in every
> case we can model particular data by using JSON-LD embedding, I really
> don't see justification for introducing as:Link.
> Pull request I started should either prove no need for as:Link or
> identify clear cases when we *really need* to have such construct.
>
> Cheers!
>