"Link Value" term is "wooly" about activitystreams HOT 7 CLOSED

If I understand this suggestion correctly, there's no functional difference between the way Link Values currently work. You're mostly suggesting a change in how it is described in text. Is that correct?

from activitystreams.

Yes, other than this would permit tightening up the definition of e.g. the "object" property such that lists would be prohibited

from activitystreams.

There's no reason why the "object" property cannot be a list... there can be more than one direct object for an activity, e.g. "James read two books, 'Green Eggs and Ham' and 'The Cat in the Hat'".

{
  "actor": "acct:[email protected]",
  "verb": "read",
  "object": [
    {
      "objectType": "book",
      "displayName": "Green Eggs and Ham"
    },
    {
      "objectType": "book",
      "displayName": "The Cat in the Hat"
    }
  ]
}

from activitystreams.

I do agree, however, that there are at least some properties (e.g. "generator", "provider") that could be limited to single objects rather than permitting lists. But I'd wager that there are few such properties.

from activitystreams.

I would argue there that what you have done is read two books, which is two separate activities. While in theory the ability to associate two objects with an activity sounds nice, I just think it complicates implementations unnecessarily.

from activitystreams.

That depends entirely on the needs of the application ;-) ... I'm working with "rollup" use cases in which the ability to specify multiple actors and multiple objects is seen as a significant advantage. The ability to capture statements like "James read two books" or "James and 3 other people followed Arnaud and Tantek" using a single Activity statement can be quite powerful.

from activitystreams.

I believe this is addressed in the current vocab proposal.

from activitystreams.