Re: [link-relations] NEW RELATION: collection

[mike amundsen <[e-mail]>]

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"?

>
> 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.

>
> Best regards, Julian
>
Thanks for the feedback.