Re: [link-relations] NEW RELATION: collection

[Mykyta Yevstifeyev <[e-mail]>]

Mike,

I've recently seen your new draft -- 
http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-amundsen-item-and-collection-link-relations-00.  
Please see some comments below.

Abstract (and also Section 1):

>     RFC 5988 [RFC5988] defined the way of indicating resources on the
>     Web.

Maybe, "of indicating relationships between resources on the Web"?

Section 1:

>     1.  OpenSearch 1.1: see<http://www.opensearch.org/Specifications/
>         OpenSearch/1.1#Url_rel_values>
>
>     2.  Maze+XML: see
>         <http://amundsen.com/media-types/maze/format/#link-relations>
>
>     3.  Collection+JSON: see<http://amundsen.com/media-types/collection/
>         format/#link-relations>

Maybe you can make these specs Informative references, in the following way:

>     1.  OpenSearch 1.1: see Section 4.5.4.1 of [OpenSearch]
>
>     2.  Maze+XML: see Section 3 of [Maze]
>
>     3.  Collection+JSON: see Section 2 of [CollectionJSON]

The references should be:

> [OpenSearch]  D. Clinton, "OpenSearch 1.1", Work in Progress, (Date), 
> <http://www.opensearch.org/Specifications/OpenSearch/1.1/>.
> [Maze]        M. Amundsen, "Maze+XML - Format", Web Page, December 
> 2010, <http://amundsen.com/media-types/maze/format/>.
> [CollectionJSON]
>               M. Amundsen, "Collection+JSON - Document Format", Web 
> Page, July 2011, 
> <http://amundsen.com/media-types/collection/format/#link-relations>

I don't think it will be a problem to translate these references into 
xml2rfc format.

In Sections 3.1 and 3.2 "Notes" and "Application Data" may safely be 
omitted.

I suppose you may add a statement similar to one in the last paragraph 
of Appendix C of RFC 5741 
(http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc5741#appendix-C) in your document.

Not a comment: How do you plan to process this document?  As 
AD-sponsored submission 
(http://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/ad-sponsoring-docs.html) or 
Independent Submission to RFC Editor (see RFC 4846)?

Thanks,
Mykyta Yevstifeyev

10.08.2011 7:05, mike amundsen wrote:
> ok, will fix the email link and upload TXT and XML.
>
> thanks for the assist.
>
> mca
> http://amundsen.com/blog/
> http://twitter.com@mamund
> http://mamund.com/foaf.rdf#me
>
>
> #RESTFest 2011 - Aug 18-20
> http://restfest.org
>
>
>
> On Wed, Aug 10, 2011 at 00:01, Mykyta Yevstifeyev<[e-mail]>  wrote:
>> 10.08.2011 6:55, mike amundsen wrote:
>>> Mykyta:
>>>
>>> Ok, will do.
>>>
>>> One procedural Q. I will be submitting both the TXT and the XML file.
>>> I assume the file names should be:
>>> draft-amundsen-item-and-collection-link-relations-00.txt
>>> draft-amundsen-item-and-collection-link-relations-00.xml
>> Yes, the TXT version you generate with xml2rfc and supply there is
>> obligatory; XML version isn't, but you may also upload it.
>>
>> Please, before uploading, fix the Apps-discuss list to link-relations list
>> in editorial note after Abstract.
>>
>> Mykyta
>>
>>> IOW, i supply the "00" and i supply the file extension.
>>>
>>> thanks.
>>>
>>> mca
>>> http://amundsen.com/blog/
>>> http://twitter.com@mamund
>>> http://mamund.com/foaf.rdf#me
>>>
>>>
>>> #RESTFest 2011 - Aug 18-20
>>> http://restfest.org
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Tue, Aug 9, 2011 at 23:39, Mykyta Yevstifeyev<[e-mail]>
>>>   wrote:
>>>> Mike,
>>>>
>>>> Please upload this draft with<https://datatracker.ietf.org/submit/>    to
>>>> allow further comments.
>>>>
>>>> Mykyta
>>>>
>>>> 10.08.2011 6:21, mike amundsen wrote:
>>>>> 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
>>>>>>
>>