Re: describedby registration

On Tue, Feb 24, 2015 at 12:35 PM, Robert Sanderson <azaroth42@gmail.com>
wrote:

>
> 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.

[1]: http://www.iana.org/assignments/link-relations/link-relations.xhtml

Regards,
Steve Speicher
http://stevespeicher.me


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