Update the default profile with the proper RDF mapping

and here is a simple patch which should not cause any trouble to the bot.

That's great. I'm fine with either, as long as we have something to relate the image to the node :) feel free to reroll.

I can't dereference http://purl.org/media#image.

rapper -g http://purl.org/media# | grep image returns only the triple:

<http://purl.org/media#depiction> <http://www.w3.org/2000/01/rdf-schema#comment> "An image summary of the media recording."@en .

which is not what I expected. Lin, can you point me to the document where you found a definition for media:image?

I'd like to settle on rdfs:seeAlso for the description of the image. I'm not happy with the Yahoo! media vocabulary because it does not dereference, and SearchMonkey seems to understand rdfs:seeAlso anyways.

+++ profiles/default/default.install	25 Nov 2009 13:05:19 -0000
@@ -180,6 +180,14 @@ function default_install() {
+          'predicates' => array('foaf:topic'),

I think sioc:topic might be more appropriate here, SearchMonkey recognizes this property as part of the Discussion objects. Also the domain of foaf:topic is foaf:Document, which means that if we want to described sioc:Items for example we need something more generic like sioc:topic which has no domain restriction.

looks good. RTBC

This will need a reroll since profiles/default/default.install was renamed to profiles/standard/standard.install in #420358: Write clear install profile descriptions.

aspilicious : Great to see you posting your first patch. The indentation of the context line 'rdftype' is not right and the patch does not apply. Did you edit the patch file? If so, that's not recommended, you should only edit the actual files (standard.install here), roll the patch (with cvs diff) and post it. The best way to reroll this patch is to edit standard.install and paste the following right after 'rdftype' => array('sioc:Item', 'foaf:Document'),:

        'field_image' => array(
          'predicates' => array('rdfs:seeAlso'),
          'type' => 'rel',
        ),
        'taxonomy_tags' => array(
          'predicates' => array('sioc:topic'),
          'type' => 'rel',
        ),

With some context, standard.install should look like:

    array(
      'type' => 'node',
      'bundle' => 'article',
      'mapping' => array(
        'rdftype' => array('sioc:Item', 'foaf:Document'),
        'field_image' => array(
          'predicates' => array('rdfs:seeAlso'),
          'type' => 'rel',
        ),
        'taxonomy_tags' => array(
          'predicates' => array('sioc:topic'),
          'type' => 'rel',
        ),
      ),
    ),

+++ profiles/standard/standard.install	6 Jan 2010 14:13:14 -0000
@@ -255,6 +255,14 @@
+        'field_image' => array(
+            'predicates' => array('rdfs:seeAlso'),
+            'type' => 'rel',

Your editor might be messing up the indentation. According to the Drupal coding standards, you should use 2 spaces for indenting (not 4 spaces). The indentation of the 4 four lines 'predicates'..., 'type'..., 'predicates'..., 'type'... need to be fixed (remove 2 spaces from each).

Powered by Dreditor.

I can't help you since I'm not a Windows user, but you could look at http://drupal.org/node/323 and http://drupal.org/node/60234 to learn how to roll patches on Windows. However this patch applies and looks good, let's wait for the testing bot results.

@aspilicious: it's generally frown upon to RTBC your own patch: the "needs review" status is not only for the testing bot, but also and foremost for other people from the community to review the patches. Peer review is what makes Drupal core code better quality, and it also saves time for webchick and Dries since other people are likely to catch bugs, typos, coding standards etc.

I'm going to leave this as "needs review" for now as I'm just thinking we might want to also add sioc:Post as rdftype of article.

I agree article will be used to many different use cases and we cannot know in advance what people will use it for, hence we need to keep the mapping generic. The only thing we know almost for sure is that it'll have comments enabled and thus enable some form of discussion (though not in a forum setting you Lin points out). Many will use it as a single user blog I think, though that's just one use case out of many.

right, so really we can't be more specific here wrt to the mapping, and it's best to let the user choose more specific mappings (if she cares to do so) via the rdf contrib module.

When are we required to implement update functions for non code changes? if it's after the first alpha release, then we should really get this patch committed before Friday: the RDF mappings are stored in the db upon installation.

rerolled patch.

This is a follow up on the best way to describe the relation between a node and its image as discussed in #2 onwards. At the time there was no explicit property to link an article to its featured image, but with the Open Graph protocol, we now have og:image which matches this use case perfectly.

@linclark, I'm working with the Facebook team to fix the namespace which should dereference pretty soon. This doesn't hold up this patch though.