Re: Issue-14: as:Link complexity

Evan,

Sure. Do you have an example in mind based on your pump.io experience?
On Apr 19, 2015 7:59 AM, "Evan Prodromou" <evan@e14n.com> wrote:

>  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!
>
>
>
>