Re: [apps-discuss] NEW RELATION: property and context

["Markus Lanthaler" <[e-mail]>]

On Wednesday, May 29, 2013 2:21 AM, James M Snell wrote:
> > James, did you read all the discussion? Ioseb made it quite clear
> that his
> > "context" is intended to be used completely different than JSON-LD's
> > context. I'm still not sure I understand its semantics.
> >
> 
> Yep, I saw that and purposefully chose to ignore it :-) ... given the
> general definition of "context" given in the draft, use for json-ld
> type scenarios is not ruled out.

Well.. the problem I have with the current I-D is that even after all these discussions I still don't understand what "context" is supposed to mean. Quoting the I-D:


   When included in a response, the "context" link relation identifies a
   target resource that represents a context document of which the
   context resource is a member.

   For example, if a resource represents the property of a photo, that
   same resource may include link to a resource which the property
   belongs.

Taking the second paragraph, wouldn't the "describes" relation achieve just that? Quoting the abstract of RFC6892 which defines "describes":

   This specification defines the 'describes' link relation type that
   allows resource representations to indicate that they are describing
   another resource.  In contexts where applications want to associate
   described resources and description resources, and want to build
   services based on these associations, the 'describes' link relation
   type provides the opposite direction of the 'describedby' link
   relation type, which already is a registered link relation type.


I would really like to understand the differences but so far I haven't seen any. Ioseb, maybe a couple of more concrete examples about how you see the two rels being used would help a lot. And maybe also mention why collection/item or describes/describedBy wouldn't work for those examples.


Cheers,
Markus


--
Markus Lanthaler
@markuslanthaler