Re: [link-relations] NEW RELATION: collection

[mike amundsen <[e-mail]>]

I've updated my pre-draft I-D for 'collection' and 'item' Link Relation Types:
http://amundsen.com/media-types/files/item-and-collection/

per suggestions from Mykyta & Julian:
- added opening sentence in Abstract and Introduction that refers to RFC5988
- added a reference to the existing media types (OpenSearch, Maze+XML,
and Collection+JSON) in the Introduction
- dropped the 2119 section
- removed the JSON examples and replaced them w/ Link Header examples;
cleaned up the examples a bit, too.
- modified Security and I18N w/ references to appropriate sections in 5988
- modified the IANA Considerations section "Reference" item per Julian
(is this what you meant?)

Julian:
regarding the existing "up" link-rel-type and the proposed
"collection" link-rel-type...
I note the def for "up" (in 5988) refers to a "hierarchy" which I mean
to avoid in the case of "collection." IOW, i think "collection" can be
used not only for navigating hierarchies (if that is what is needed),
but also to navigate filtered sets or groups that are not in a
hierarchy.

Thanks again for the feedback. I look forward to additional remarks.

mca
http://amundsen.com/blog/
http://twitter.com@mamund
http://mamund.com/foaf.rdf#me


#RESTFest 2011 - Aug 18-20
http://restfest.org



On Sun, Aug 7, 2011 at 09:32, Julian Reschke <[e-mail]> wrote:
> On 2011-08-07 04:09, mike amundsen wrote:
>>
>> I've posted a "pre-draft" version of the I-D here:
>> http://amundsen.com/media-types/files/item-and-collection/
>>
>> I would appreciate any advice, pointers, suggestions on improving this
>> before I post the first submission to the IETF.
>> ...
>
> OK. Looks good so far.
>
> A general question: what's the relation between "up" and "collection"? Do
> you see "up" as a special case in that it mentions document hierarchies?
>
> Editorial:
>
> - as Mykyta noted: no need for Section 2 if you don't need the keywords
>
> - the examples use a JSON vocabulary without saying what it is; you may want
> to reference "your" media types
>
> - alternatively or additionally, add Link header field examples
>
> - IANA considerations: replace "this document" with a reference to the
> actual section
>
> - I18N: just point to RFC 5988, Section 8.
>
>> I am currently at a loss as to what to include for the Security
>> Considerations section. I've posted some suggestions/questions within
>> this draft; feel free to point me in the proper direction.
>
> As Mykyta said: cite RFC 5988 and then think about additional issues.
>
>>    Consideration for links that cross admin boundaries?
>>    Infected Sites?
>>    Pointing to malicious content?
>
> ...and maybe link loops. Not sure what can be said; all of these seem to
> generic to any kind of following hyperlinks.
>
>> As soon as I clean up this version, I'll post it to the tracker
>> (another first for me<g>).
>> ...
>
> Best regards, Julian
>