Re: Status 'describedby' relationship type (was [Re: @rel type 'describedby'])

Hi Michelle,

Thanks very much for this. I have now submitted the request and received 
the ticket number 221766. The relevant e-mail is archived at [1].

The template you've pointed me to is slightly different to the one I 
used before so it took me a little time to re-write the submission and 
get the documents in the right place. I hope everything is in order? 
(shout if not and I'll put it right ASAP).

Thanks again for your help,

Phil.

[1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-powderwg/2009Feb/0007.html

Michelle Cotton wrote:
> Phil,
> 
> Please send the most recent copy of the template to iana@iana.org where you will receive an automated ticket request number.
> IANA will then request the IESG to review the template and approve the request.  As soon as a decision is made we will communicate it to you.
> 
> Template from RFC4287.
>   o  Attribute Value: (A value for the "rel" attribute that conforms to
>       the syntax rule given in Section 4.2.7.2)
>    o  Description:
>    o  Expected display characteristics:
>    o  Security considerations:
> 
> I will be in charge of processing this request so feel free to ask me any questions.
> 
> Thank you and apologies for any delay in replying to your earlier message.
> 
> 
> Michelle Cotton
> IANA
> 
> 
> On 2/3/09 1:37 AM, "Phil Archer" <phil@philarcher.org> wrote:
> 
> Dear Miss Roseman, Miss Cotton,
> 
> I wonder whether you can tell me what your position is on the request I
> submitted last year for a relationship type of 'describedby' to be added
> to the Atom registry [1].
> 
> I am well aware that the initial submission was not done particularly
> well and have attempted in subsequent e-mails to correct earlier
> mistakes, however, these e-mails have not been answered so I am in the
> dark as to where the registration request has got to.
> 
> The communication thread is as follows:
> 
> 19 Nov. Initial e-mail sent to barbara.roseman@iana.org, not publicly
> shared.
> 
> Reply received from Michelle seeking clarification to which I responded
> again on the same day [2].
> 
> 24 Nov After taking advice, I prepared a better request, updated the
> relevant document and sent an e-mail to Michelle [3].
> 
> 8 Dec I sent a further update to Michelle (below).
> 
> Neither of the last 2 e-mails prompted a reply.
> 
> The relevant documentation for describedby is available with W3C member
> access at [4] and, if needed, without W3C access at [5].
> 
> In the interim, Eran Hammer-Lahav has submitted an Internet Draft [6]
> which makes direct reference to the describedby link relationship and
> the POWDER document (at its long term URI, where it is expected to be
> within the next few weeks).
> 
> I would be grateful for any clarification you're able to offer.
> 
> Phil Archer
> W3C POWDER WG Chair
> 
> 
> 
> [1] http://www.iana.org/assignments/link-relations/link-relations.xhtml
> [2] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-powderwg/2008Nov/0016.html
> [3] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-powderwg/2008Nov/0021.html
> [4] http://www.w3.org/2007/powder/Group/powder-dr/20090120-diff.html#appD
> [5] http://philarcher.org/powder/dr/20090120-diff.html#appD
> [6] http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-hammer-discovery-01
> 
> 
> 
> -------- Original Message --------
> Subject: Re: FW: @rel type 'describedby'
> Date: Mon, 08 Dec 2008 14:59:07 +0000
> From: Phil Archer <phil@philarcher.org>
> To: Michelle Cotton <michelle.cotton@icann.org>
> CC: public-powderwg@w3.org <public-powderwg@w3.org>
> References: <C5499970.20315%michelle.cotton@icann.org>
> 
> Dear Miss Cotton,
> 
> I write to give you a further update regarding the request for add
> 'describedby' to the ATOM link relations registry.
> 
> Firstly, I have just submitted a second registration request to IANA for
> the two media types we need for POWDER [1]. This follows advice on
> process errors made when originally requesting those media types. One of
> the actions necessary for that was to add details of the registration to
> the relevant normative document. In the light of that action, it seemed
> sensible to add a similar section with details of the describedby link
> relationship. This has been done at [2]. This is a W3C member-access
> version of the document published at [3]  on which a Last Call period
> has just ended. The updated version includes the changes made in
> relation to the registration issues concerning describedby and the media
> types.
> 
> Finally, I would like to draw your attention to discussions taking place
> in other fora concerning describedby. For example 4, 5, 6. This is where
> the general issue of metadata discovery in general, and of Mark
> Nottingham's I-D in HTTP Link is being discussed. The use of
> 'describedby' cf. 'meta' has been discussed and I believe that consensus
> has been reached around describedby (which is relevant to more than just
> POWDER).
> 
> Please advise me if there is anything further needed for your
> considerations.
> 
> Phil.
> 
> [1]  http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-powderwg/2008Dec/0033.html
> [2]  http://www.w3.org/2007/powder/Group/powder-dr/20081205.html#appD
> [3] http://www.w3.org/TR/powder-dr/
> [4]
> http://groups.google.com/group/metadata-discovery/browse_thread/thread/d34e7fd9c9387a97?hl=en
> [5] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/doc/more-uniform-access.html
> [6]
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/ietf-http-wg/2008OctDec/0257.html
> (long thread)
> 
> 
> Michelle Cotton wrote:
>> Dear Mr. Archer,
>>
>> My name is Michelle Cotton and your message has been passed to me by Barbara Roseman.
>> I would like to verify what you are requesting to register so that I can provide the correct registration procedures.
>>
>> Are you looking for a registration in the following registry?
>> http://www.iana.org/assignments/link-relations/link-relations.xhtml
>>
>> Thank you,
>>
>> Michelle Cotton
>> IANA
>>
>>
>>
>> ------ Forwarded Message
>> From: Phil Archer <parcher@fosi.org>
>> Date: Wed, 19 Nov 2008 06:29:05 -0800
>> To: <barbara.roseman@iana.org>
>> Subject: @rel type 'describedby'
>>
>> Dear Ms Roseman,
>>
>> I was given your name following a conversation at a W3C meeting last
>> week. I write on behalf of the W3C POWDER Working Group [1] to request
>> the registration of a new link relationship type as follows:
>>
>> Relationship type: describedby
>> Purpose: to link a resource to a description that applies to
>>           that resource
>> Documentation: http://www.w3.org/TR/powder-dr/#assoc-linking
>>
>> The Recommendations Track Document 'POWDER: Description Resources'
>> (cited above) was published this week as a (second) Last Call and we
>> noted that we do not expect to issue a separate call for implementations
>> before seeking transition to Proposed Recommendation next month. I am
>> also writing to IETF to register the MIME types documented in the same
>> place.
>>
>> Background
>> ==========
>> The Protocol for Web Description Resources (POWDER) defines a method by
>> which descriptions may be applied to multiple resources, typically
>> 'everything on a Web site.' The link relationship will be used to point
>> from those resources to such a description, either in HTML link elements
>> or through HTTP Link elements (currently under discussion through Mark
>> Nottingham's Internet Draft [2] and, I understand, expected to be
>> updated later this week and moved to RFC status subject to comments
>> received).
>>
>> The relationship A 'describedby' B does not imply that B is a POWDER
>> file (the MIME type does that), simply that B provides a description of
>> A. The representation returned from A and B is not constrained by the
>> relationship.
>>
>> Wider context
>> =============
>> I believe it is also appropriate to outline the broader context in which
>> this request is made. There has been a good deal of discussion amongst
>> various W3C Working Groups for more than a year on how @rel types should
>> be managed. Various solutions have been proposed: the use of HTML 4's
>> profile attribute being one, writing new types into a wiki being another
>> and so on. Consensus has been hard to reach. At the recent W3C Tech
>> Plenary, several groups, including POWDER, took part in a discussion
>> with the HTML 5 WG on this issue. Although it would be wrong to suggest
>> that there was unanimity on the way forward, there was general consensus
>> that registering new relationship types should be a relatively
>> lightweight process but clearly not so lightweight that it became
>> unworkable.
>>
>> Whether IANA decides to approve the POWDER WG's request to register
>> 'describedby' or not, the process of registration is therefore something
>> of significant interest beyond any one WG.
>>
>> I have not copied this to POWDER's public mailing list as I am unsure
>> whether that would be acceptable to you. If it is, I would be grateful
>> if you would cc public-powderwg@w3.org in your reply.
>>
>> Thank you.
>>
>> Phil Archer
>> POWDER WG Chair.
>>
>> [1] http://www.w3.org/2007/powder/
>> [2] http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-nottingham-http-link-header-02
>>

-- 
Phil Archer
w. http://philarcher.org/

Received on Thursday, 5 February 2009 12:49:54 UTC