Re: rel=meta and the Link Relation Type registry (was Re: New Version Notification - draft-nottingham-http-link-header-08.txt)

> At first glance, it seems like what you want might be covered by describedby;
> see <http://www.w3.org/TR/powder-dr/#assoc-linking>. Even if you don't use
> POWDER itself, another media type might be workable...

Interesting. Not totally sure about it, but possibly, yes ...

Will discuss with the DIG folks and come back to you if needed. Anyway,
thanks for your guidance!

Cheers,
      Michael

-- 
Dr. Michael Hausenblas
LiDRC - Linked Data Research Centre
DERI - Digital Enterprise Research Institute
NUIG - National University of Ireland, Galway
Ireland, Europe
Tel. +353 91 495730
http://linkeddata.deri.ie/
http://sw-app.org/about.html



> From: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>
> Date: Tue, 9 Mar 2010 21:48:13 +1100
> To: Mark Nottingham <mnot@pobox.com>
> Cc: Michael Hausenblas <michael.hausenblas@deri.org>, HTTP Working Group
> <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>, Melvin Carvalho <melvincarvalho@gmail.com>, Joe
> Presbrey <presbrey@mit.edu>, <jambo@mit.edu>, Tim Berners-Lee <timbl@w3.org>
> Subject: Re: rel=meta and the Link Relation Type registry (was Re: New
> Version Notification -  draft-nottingham-http-link-header-08.txt)
> 
> Ah. Good catch.
> 
> At first glance, it seems like what you want might be covered by describedby;
> see <http://www.w3.org/TR/powder-dr/#assoc-linking>. Even if you don't use
> POWDER itself, another media type might be workable...
> 
> Cheers,
> 
> 
> On 09/03/2010, at 9:16 PM, Mark Nottingham wrote:
> 
>> Hi Michael,
>> 
>> The draft is in IESG review at this point, and in any case the idea behind it
>> is to include those relations currently in the registry or in HTML4, rather
>> than be an all-inclusive listing.
>> 
>> So, the best thing to do would be to register a new value; you can start that
>> process now, by starting to write the specification, in anticipation of the
>> draft becoming an RFC.
>> 
>> Regards,
>> 
>> 
>> On 05/03/2010, at 2:59 AM, Michael Hausenblas wrote:
>> 
>>> 
>>> Mark,
>>> 
>>> Would it still be possible to extend the "Link Relation Type registry" [1]
>>> with a rel="meta" value? Use case would be ACLs as described in [2] (see
>>> section 3.2). If this is not possible, what rel value would you advise to
>>> use, instead?
>>> 
>>> Cheers,
>>>     Michael
>>> 
>>> [1] 
>>> http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-nottingham-http-link-header-08#section-6.2
>>> [2] http://dig.csail.mit.edu/2009/Papers/ISWC/rdf-access-control/paper.pdf
>>> 
>>> -- 
>>> Dr. Michael Hausenblas
>>> LiDRC - Linked Data Research Centre
>>> DERI - Digital Enterprise Research Institute
>>> NUIG - National University of Ireland, Galway
>>> Ireland, Europe
>>> Tel. +353 91 495730
>>> http://linkeddata.deri.ie/
>>> http://sw-app.org/about.html
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>>> From: Mark Nottingham <mnot@pobox.com>
>>>> Date: Tue, 2 Mar 2010 10:39:49 +1100
>>>> To: HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
>>>> Subject: Fwd: New Version Notification -
>>>> draft-nottingham-http-link-header-08.txt
>>>> Resent-From: <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
>>>> Resent-Date: Mon, 01 Mar 2010 23:40:36 +0000
>>>> 
>>>> FYI.
>>>> 
>>>> Begin forwarded message:
>>>> 
>>>>> From: Internet-Draft@ietf.org
>>>>> Date: 2 March 2010 12:00:01 AM AEDT
>>>>> To: mnot@pobox.com,
>>>>> draft-nottingham-http-link-header@tools.ietf.org,lisa.dusseault@gmail.com
>>>>> Subject: New Version Notification -
>>>>> draft-nottingham-http-link-header-08.txt
>>>>> 
>>>>> New version (-08) has been submitted for
>>>>> draft-nottingham-http-link-header-08.txt.
>>>>> http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-nottingham-http-link-header-08.t
>>>>> xt
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> Diff from previous version:
>>>>> http://tools.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-nottingham-http-link-header-08
>>>>> 
>>>>> IETF Secretariat.
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>> 
>> 
>> 
> 
> 
> --
> Mark Nottingham     http://www.mnot.net/
>

Received on Tuesday, 9 March 2010 11:00:48 UTC