RE: Link: relation registry and 303

Mark & Stuart & Phil,

Would something like the following represent a reasonable compromise for the Link headers RFC?

For standard relations:
 - Normatively define short names for the standard terms;
 - Informatively suggest that those who wish to model these relations in RDF use the corresponding URIs defined in POWDER to do so.

For extension relations:
 - Normatively specify that extension relations are directly identified by absolute URIs (RFC3986 sec 4.3);
 - Informatively suggest that those who wish to define extension relations follow the guidelines in "Cool URIs for the Semantic Web"
http://www.w3.org/TR/swbp-vocab-pub/#recipe2
(I'm guessing on this last URI -- I'm offline and cannot check it).



David Booth, Ph.D.
HP Software
+1 617 629 8881 office  |  dbooth@hp.com
http://www.hp.com/go/software

Statements made herein represent the views of the author and do not necessarily represent the official views of HP unless explicitly so stated.
 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: www-tag-request@w3.org [mailto:www-tag-request@w3.org] 
> On Behalf Of Mark Nottingham
> Sent: Monday, February 02, 2009 4:14 PM
> To: Williams, Stuart (HP Labs, Bristol)
> Cc: Roy T.Fielding; www-tag@w3.org WG; Anne van Kesteren; 
> Henri Sivonen
> Subject: Re: Link: relation registry and 303
> 
> 
> 
> On 03/02/2009, at 5:15 AM, Williams, Stuart (HP Labs, Bristol) wrote:
> >>>
> >>> I don't think that's a good idea.  Why not just require that the
> >>> URI be entirely lowercase
> >>
> >> That seems like an artificial and constraining requirement, but it
> >> does have the benefit of simplicity. However, it would 
> still require
> >> case normalisation to take place for HTML (4 and 5).
> >>
> >>> , or that it can (in this context) be
> >>> compared case-insensitive?
> >>
> >> That was the original approach taken.
> >
> > 'original' as in the current round of recent drafts, or 
> original as  
> > in when the field was described as an sgml-name?
> 
> Ah, sorry -- 'original' in the scope of my drafts.
> 
> 
> > Anyway, case-insensitive comparison, at least of the final path  
> > segment if not the full URI would seem a reasonable pragmatic step.
> >
> >> Bifurcation has the benefit of limiting case insensitivity to just
> >> registered values, instead of all URIs; I imagine that the Semantic
> >> Web community would take some issue with that (although I'd love to
> >> hear feedback from them).
> >
> > Speaking of "Bifurcation" seems a bit melodramtic - and 
> promulgates  
> > a notion of spliting which you earlier said was not your intent.
> 
> Now I'm confused. My intent isn't to be melodramatic at all. My  
> current, unpublished draft has split the relation types into  
> registered (token) and extension (URI), based upon discussion 
> in early  
> December. My intent is to either confirm this as the correct 
> path, or  
> find a new one.
> 
> 
> >> SemWeb folks, if we were to do the above, and specify that link
> >> relation URIs pointed to documents describing the relation, would  
> >> that
> >> work for you? If not, why? Please state your answer in terms of  
> >> issues
> >> that affect actual implementations using those link relations.
> >
> > I guess I more of a sem web person, but I don't specially 
> speak for  
> > the community.
> 
> Of course.
> 
> > Personnally, (and probably preversely) I'd still take the 
> view that  
> > the rel values are URI names for the relations - I'd not be 
> inclined  
> > to give up on that view.
> >
> > Pragmatically, I'd probably (personnally) attribute no particular  
> > significance to a 200 or 303 returned by dereferencing the 
> relations  
> > full URI name (might special case it for shortnamed rel values  
> > anyway) and hope that whatever I got back directly or after  
> > redirection had something to say about the relation I'm interested  
> > in that I was prepared to believe. ie. I'd probably only believe  
> > that the relation was a document if the description I'd obtained  
> > explicitly said that it was. I'd ty to be robust to folks 
> not doing  
> > the 303 step, even though as things stand at the moment - 
> I'd prefer  
> > that they did.
> 
> 
> OK, thanks.
> 
> --
> Mark Nottingham     http://www.mnot.net/
> 
> 
>

Received on Tuesday, 3 February 2009 13:06:03 UTC