- From: Melvin Carvalho <melvincarvalho@gmail.com>
- Date: Sat, 10 Aug 2013 14:40:25 +0200
- To: Andrei Sambra <andrei.sambra@gmail.com>
- Cc: Henry Story <henry.story@bblfish.net>, "public-lod@w3.org Data" <public-lod@w3.org>, "public-webid@w3.org" <public-webid@w3.org>, Read-Write-Web <public-rww@w3.org>, Kingsley Idehen <kidehen@openlinksw.com>, Alexandre Bertails <bertails@w3.org>, Joe Presbrey <presbrey@gmail.com>, Tim Berners-Lee <timbl@w3.org>
- Message-ID: <CAKaEYhLgwqqNgakmr24xoVPy-_fU=bi69RyNmaOZSoauO0byyg@mail.gmail.com>
On 10 August 2013 14:23, Andrei Sambra <andrei.sambra@gmail.com> wrote: > > On Sat, Aug 10, 2013 at 1:59 PM, Melvin Carvalho <melvincarvalho@gmail.com > > wrote: > >> >> >> >> On 10 August 2013 10:56, Henry Story <henry.story@bblfish.net> wrote: >> >>> >>> On 10 Aug 2013, at 00:18, Kingsley Idehen <kidehen@openlinksw.com> >>> wrote: >>> >>> >> When talking about this with Alexandre Bertails he thought that >>> rel="meta" was >>> >> not the right relation and that rel="acl" would be more correct. >>> > >>> > Yes. >>> > >>> > It will be fixed. >>> >>> We need to get those who have implementations to agree on this first. :-) >>> >>> And I am not sure what forum is available where we can agree on edits to >>> the acl ontolgy or the http://www.w3.org/wiki/WebAccessControl wiki >>> page, >>> so I am sending this mail a bit widely around. The WebAccessControl wiki >>> page suggests that the RWW Community Group is the place to discuss this. >>> >>> I suppose for the moment the WebAccessControl wiki page plays the role >>> of a >>> spec. It says: >>> >>> [[ >>> The client follows, for example, an HTTP header field: >>> >>> Link: <meta/profile.meta>; rel=meta >>> ]] >>> >>> Alexandre Bertails once argued that meta is too general, and that this >>> should >>> be an "acl" link. Neither "acl" nor "meta" are registered in the iana >>> document >>> http://www.iana.org/assignments/link-relations/link-relations.xhtml >>> which is I think where this needs to be registered. >>> See http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc5988#section-6.1 >>> >>> For us to register this we should probably have something a bit more >>> spec like than the wiki page. >>> >>> I also would like to add to the ontology >>> - support for regular expressions on urls >>> - a acl:include relation to include acls from other documents >>> >> >> I'm happy to change implementations if there's a good reason to. >> >> However, we've been using rel="meta" since at least 2009 >> > > That's not a good enough reason not to change it. :) > > >> >> My understanding of the ACL system was that is was a metaphor for UNIX >> style inodes which provide meta data about a file. While the ACL is in >> there, there can be other information that is fundamental to the resource >> too (or we may wish to add some later). >> > > The advantage of using rel="acl" is that if you have a binary file (i.e. a > picture), you can use rel="acl" for access control policies and rel="meta" > to provide more information about it. > Sure, I see the advantages, even though it may be one round trip more, it's a change I could live with. As registration of rel="meta" has already begun, it's up to supporters of rel="acl" to join the process and try and achieve consensus. As henry says, I'd suggest continuing this discussion in the RWW community group, and perhaps on #dig irc, as many of the relevant people are already there. > > Andrei > > >> >> There has been previous discussions to register rel="meta" with IANA e.g. >> >> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/ietf-http-wg/2010JanMar/0244.html >> >> >>> >>> >>> Social Web Architect >>> http://bblfish.net/ >>> >>> >>> >> >
Received on Saturday, 10 August 2013 12:40:55 UTC