Re: [link-relations] NEW RELATION: collection

[Mykyta Yevstifeyev <[e-mail]>]

06.08.2011 11:30, mike amundsen wrote:
> <quote>
>> I'm trying to understand whether the intent for Opensearch's<Url>  element
>> is to use the same relation names as, for instance, the HTTP Link header
>> field.
> </quote>
> Well, I really can't answer that Q. I included OpenSearch since it
> _does_ use the same word as a rel value.
>
> <quote>
>> In the past we have rejected requests that pointed to private domains.
> </quote>
> Both values are logged here:
> http://microformats.org/wiki/existing-rel-values#non_HTML_rel_values

Mike,

This link you point to here and below (I mean 
http://amundsen.com/media-types/linkrelations/registrations/) cannot be 
considered to be fine for RFC 5226 'Specification Required'.  I agree 
here with Julian that writing the Internet-Draft should be sufficient to 
perform registration; the template written by Julian is perfect to be 
used here.

Mykyta

>
> mca
> http://amundsen.com/blog/
> http://twitter.com@mamund
> http://mamund.com/foaf.rdf#me
>
>
> #RESTFest 2011 - Aug 18-20
> http://restfest.org
>
>
>
> On Sat, Aug 6, 2011 at 04:25, Julian Reschke<[e-mail]>  wrote:
>> On 2011-08-06 10:14, mike amundsen wrote:
>>> On Sat, Aug 6, 2011 at 04:00, Julian Reschke<[e-mail]>
>>>   wrote:
>>>> On 2011-08-06 09:30, mike amundsen wrote:
>>>>> Relation Name:
>>>>> collection
>>>>>
>>>>> Description:
>>>>> The target IRI points to a resource which represents a list of which
>>>>> the context  IRI is a member.
>>>>>
>>>>> References:
>>>>> http://www.opensearch.org/Specifications/OpenSearch/1.1#Url_rel_values
>>>>> http://amundsen.com/media-types/maze/format/#link-relations
>>>>> http://amundsen.com/media-types/collection/format/#link-relations
>>>>>
>>>>> Notes:
>>>>> Logged with the Microformats Existing Rel Values.
>>>>> The OpenSearch definition is different than that given above
>>>>> ("Represents a request for a set of resources.")
>>>>>
>>>>> Application Data:
>>>>> None
>>>> A few questions:
>>>>
>>>> Is Opensearch using link relations in the RFC 5988 sense? That is, do
>>>> they
>>>> share the same space of names?
>>> Not sure of this question "share the same space of names"?
>> I'm trying to understand whether the intent for Opensearch's<Url>  element
>> is to use the same relation names as, for instance, the HTTP Link header
>> field.
>>
>>>> Also, if this is a new relation name, wouldn't "contained-in" or
>>>> something
>>>> like that be more accurate? (yep, that's bikeshedding)
>>> yeah, might have been better. At this point I'd prefer to not amend the
>>> name.
>>>
>>>> Finally:
>>>>
>>>>> http://amundsen.com/media-types/maze/format/#link-relations
>>>>> http://amundsen.com/media-types/collection/format/#link-relations
>>>> It would be great if there was a single document defining the link
>>>> relation
>>>> independently of a specific media type.
>>> I have a page that only lists the IANA-related link relations:
>>> http://amundsen.com/media-types/linkrelations/registrations/
>>>
>>> I can split this into a single document for each relation type, if
>>> that is the preferred approach.
>> That might be good; but before that we probably should figure out first
>> where this document should live  -- RFC 5988 requests "specification
>> required", which in IETF-speak means:
>>
>>       Specification Required - Values and their meanings must be
>>             documented in a permanent and readily available public
>>             specification, in sufficient detail so that interoperability
>>             between independent implementations is possible.  When used,
>>             Specification Required also implies use of a Designated
>>             Expert, who will review the public specification and
>>             evaluate whether it is sufficiently clear to allow
>>             interoperable implementations.  The intention behind
>>             "permanent and readily available" is that a document can
>>             reasonably be expected to be findable and retrievable long
>>             after IANA assignment of the requested value.  Publication
>>             of an RFC is an ideal means of achieving this requirement,
>>             but Specification Required is intended to also cover the
>>             case of a document published outside of the RFC path.  For
>>             RFC publication, the normal RFC review process is expected
>>             to provide the necessary review for interoperability, though
>>             the Designated Expert may be a particularly well-qualified
>>             person to perform such a review.
>>
>> In the past we have rejected requests that pointed to private domains.
>>
>> Any chance you could put the stuff into an Internet Draft? Template:
>> <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/link-relations/current/msg00152.html>.
>>
>> Best regards, Julian
>>
> _______________________________________________
> link-relations mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/link-relations
>