Re: [rest-discuss] request to register 'describes' link relation (http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-wilde-describes-link-01) from Erik Wilde on 2012-10-10 (public-ldp@w3.org from October 2012)

From: Erik Wilde <dret@berkeley.edu>
Date: Tue, 09 Oct 2012 20:11:38 -1000
To: nathan@webr3.org
CC: link-relations@ietf.org, "apps-discuss@ietf.org application-layer protocols" <apps-discuss@ietf.org>, REST-Discuss <rest-discuss@yahoogroups.com>, hypermedia-web@googlegroups.com, LDP WG <public-ldp@w3.org>
Message-ID: <5075119A.1020104@berkeley.edu>

hello nathan.

On 2012-10-09 13:21 , Nathan wrote:
> Looks good and most useful, is it worth mentioning anywhere that this
> inverse relations(describes being the inverse of describedby) is now
> needed due to @rev falling out of fashion? It may help explain why
> describes wasn't defined by powder in the first instance.

honestly, i think such a comment would probably confuse more people than 
it would help. @rev never was a popular idea to begin with and only part 
of relatively few vocabularies.

cheers,

dret.

-- 
erik wilde | mailto:dret@berkeley.edu  -  tel:+1-510-2061079 |
            | UC Berkeley  -  School of Information (ISchool) |
            | http://dret.net/netdret http://twitter.com/dret |

Received on Wednesday, 10 October 2012 06:12:08 UTC