@evan @trwnh if I have a Collection / OrderedCollection, and a set of Objects within that collection, with each Object being independently addressable, is there any property I can use to link from the Object to the Collection it is part of?
-
erincandescent@akko.erincandescent.netreplied to trwnh@mastodon.social last edited by
@trwnh @thisismissem @evan I sometimes wish AP Collections were (a subset of) LDP Containers because they have a bunch of niceness to them but alas
-
dmitri@social.coopreplied to erincandescent@akko.erincandescent.net last edited by
@erincandescent @evan @thisismissem @trwnh So, that's a good point (that Objects can be part of multiple collections), but it still feels like AP Objects need a 'here's the _canonical_ parent Collection that hosts me' property for an object. A back-link to the Outbox collection or something.
-
trwnh@mastodon.socialreplied to erincandescent@akko.erincandescent.net last edited by
@erincandescent @evan @thisismissem if you squint really hard they are sort of the same thing just manipulated differently (RESTfully instead of with Add/Remove)
AS2-Core 4.6 "Collections" even describes them as "a container" (so conceptually there is some closeness)
i wonder if it's not too late to unify them somehow or otherwise lead them to convergence -- at least with Solid containers (which inherit directly from LDP iirc?) you have projects like ActivityPods that attempt something like it
-
thisismissem@hachyderm.ioreplied to trwnh@mastodon.social last edited by
@trwnh @erincandescent @evan hmm, okay, here was me hoping for a term that already existed — I’m really kinda wanting there to not be a https://fires.fedimod.org/ns if I can avoid it. I'm just not versed enough in json-ld / owl.
Hence thinking `partOf`, but yeah, a `itemOf` would make sense too!
-
thisismissem@hachyderm.ioreplied to thisismissem@hachyderm.io last edited by
@trwnh @erincandescent @evan I'm really looking at AS2 vocabulary / shapes here because it would ease the path towards making a label provider actually also an Actor, where we distribute Add/Remove activities for that collection.
-
trwnh@mastodon.socialreplied to erincandescent@akko.erincandescent.net last edited by
@erincandescent @evan @thisismissem i don’t think you can redefine iris like that in jsonld, basically anything with a colon in it is subject to expansion and cannot be defined as a term
-
erincandescent@akko.erincandescent.netreplied to trwnh@mastodon.social last edited by
@trwnh @evan @thisismissem Redefine IRIs?
"ldp:isMemberOfRelation": {"@id": "https://fires.fedimod.org/ns#inLabelSet"}
would be an actual collection property -
trwnh@mastodon.socialreplied to thisismissem@hachyderm.io last edited by
@thisismissem @erincandescent @evan this is giving echoes of the Web Annotation protocol vs actor discussion on github
i think you will inevitably end up having to define your own ns/vocab unless you find one that exists that already matches your problem space
-
thisismissem@hachyderm.ioreplied to erincandescent@akko.erincandescent.net last edited by
@erincandescent @trwnh @evan and this is the point at which I'm lost and have no idea what you're talking about
-
trwnh@mastodon.socialreplied to erincandescent@akko.erincandescent.net last edited by
@erincandescent @evan @thisismissem oh i must have misunderstood, i thought you meant putting that snippet in the jsonld context, not in the jsonld graph
-
trwnh@mastodon.socialreplied to thisismissem@hachyderm.io last edited by
@thisismissem @erincandescent @evan i think “isMemberOfRelation” might be declaring that every member of the collection is related to some subject by being “inLabelSet”
-
trwnh@mastodon.socialreplied to dmitri@social.coop last edited by
@dmitri @erincandescent @evan @thisismissem wdym "canonical collection"? define "canonical"
-
dmitri@social.coopreplied to trwnh@mastodon.social last edited by
@trwnh @erincandescent @evan @thisismissem I think I meant it in the rel="canonical" (https://developers.google.com/search/docs/crawling-indexing/consolidate-duplicate-urls ) / POSSE sense.
-
trwnh@mastodon.socialreplied to dmitri@social.coop last edited by
@dmitri @erincandescent @evan @thisismissem "canonical" in that sense has to do with preferring a specific identifier, not membership in a collection... so i'm still confused lol
-
dmitri@social.coopreplied to trwnh@mastodon.social last edited by
@trwnh @erincandescent @evan @thisismissem The analogy I was trying to make with rel="canonical" is that I don't think of, say, a blog post, as an opaque identifier. I think of it as an item in my blog's Posts collection. But then I can also add it to some other publication, say Medium.com, to its collection of posts. But indicate that its canonical location/collection is back on my site, in the POSSE sense.
-
erincandescent@akko.erincandescent.netreplied to dmitri@social.coop last edited by@dmitri @trwnh @evan @thisismissem if I were giving it a name I'd call it the parent collection, I think, but there's no such relationship defined in AS2
-
trwnh@mastodon.socialreplied to dmitri@social.coop last edited by
@dmitri @erincandescent @evan @thisismissem that’s interesting and i generally disagree but i think i can see an LDP-esque argument for it in having resources exist within containers? but even then i don’t think LDP makes any single container “canonical” (or more appropriately “primary”) does it?
-
dmitri@social.coopreplied to erincandescent@akko.erincandescent.net last edited by
@erincandescent @evan @thisismissem @trwnh "parent" collection is also a great term, as is @trwnh 's suggestion of "primary" collection
-
trwnh@mastodon.socialreplied to dmitri@social.coop last edited by
@dmitri @erincandescent @evan @thisismissem those two terms are both better than "canonical" but i'm still not 100% convinced that the concept itself makes sense. if it's a purposeful grouping and you really should view the object in context of some collection then use `as:context`. but most of the time, an object being included in a collection isn't inherently meaningful... if there's a specific meaning you're trying to signal, then it should be expressed with a meaningful relation.
-
thisismissem@hachyderm.ioreplied to trwnh@mastodon.social last edited by
@trwnh @dmitri @erincandescent @evan the specific meaning I'm trying to communicate here is that this label doesn't really exist in isolation, it's part of a broader set of labels.