Re: describedby registration

On Tue, Feb 24, 2015 at 12:35 PM, Robert Sanderson <>

> All,
> Apologies again for missing the call yesterday.
> A quick question:  Is there a technical or political reason why the
> registration of isdescribedby in the LDP spec does not state that it's the
> inverse relationship of describes?  Is this is the unwritten intent,
> however?
Hi Rob,

I believe the intent was that the current registration of "describedby" was
limited to the definition in POWDER [1].  So we clarified it within LDP.
>From what I recall, there was no need to add any clarity to the definition
of "describes" as it is satisfactory as written for the needs of LDP.


Steve Speicher

> Thanks,
> Rob
> --
> Rob Sanderson
> Information Standards Advocate
> Digital Library Systems and Services
> Stanford, CA 94305

Received on Monday, 2 March 2015 14:39:12 UTC