Re: Issue-14: as:Link complexity

On 04/19/2015 04:59 PM, Evan Prodromou wrote:
> Elf Pavlik,
Hi Evan,

> 
> 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.
We can still use link relations by mapping them in JSON-LD context and
using as attributes on objects. Please take a look at this long and
confusing github issue
https://github.com/mnot/I-D/issues/39

{
  ...,
  "image": {
    "@type": "Link",
    "rel": "thumbnail",
    "href": "http://example.com/image.jpeg"
  }
}

becomes simple

{
  ...,
  "thumbnail": "href": "http://example.com/image.jpeg"
}

> 
> 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.
Did you register those relation types with IANA and/or microformats wiki
or you use full URIs?


Cheers!

> 
> 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!
>>
> 
>