Re: [link-relations] NEW RELATION: collection

[mike amundsen <[e-mail]>]

On Wed, Aug 10, 2011 at 00:55, Mykyta Yevstifeyev <[e-mail]> wrote:
> 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"?

How about this:

"RFC 5988 [RFC5988] standardized a means of indicating the
relationships between resources on the Web."

the content for this sentence comes from Section 1 of RFC5988.

>
> 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.

sounds fine. i have some inline examples of reference markup for the
RFC XML; should be no problem.

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

Done.

>
> 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.

Yes, I have a couple people in mind already<g>.

>
> 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)?

Doing some reading and will post again to get feedback.

MCA

>
> 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
>>>>>>>
>>>
>
>