W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-tag@w3.org > January 2009

Re: Link: relation registry and 303

From: Jonathan Rees <jar@creativecommons.org>
Date: Fri, 30 Jan 2009 09:48:04 -0500
Cc: Tim Berners-Lee <timbl@w3.org>, "www-tag@w3.org WG" <www-tag@w3.org>, Lisa Dusseault <lisa@osafoundation.org>
Message-Id: <C2AB1D86-09E8-4BFE-9464-A91510017558@creativecommons.org>
To: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>

On Jan 29, 2009, at 11:35 PM, Mark Nottingham wrote:

> FWIW -- I'm in the process of editing link-04, and consensus was  
> already moving in the direction of NOT having the registered  
> relations be URIs, because of the complexity that brought to  
> interpreting (historically, they've been compared case- 
> insensitively). That means that, to some degree, this discussion is  
> moot.

Ah, sweet relief!

> The extension relations (i.e., non-registered) are still URIs, and  
> as mentioned before, I'm happy to say that those URIs refer to  
> documents describing the relations, if that will allow us to move  
> forward.

This certainly gets a nice separation of layers -- no reference to the  
semweb layer inside of an Internet layer RFC.

It creates a problem for the semweb community, that of choosing URIs  
for the corresponding properties (relations). But the semweb community  
has the problem of determining URIs in spades already, so it can just  
use whatever tactics it already uses. This would have no impact on the  
RFC.   ... In fact POWDER has already minted its own URI for the  
describedby relation, so pushing the relation URI problem out of the  
RFC makes it easier to coordinate POWDER and Link:.

To Tim: I have tried using your 'turf' argument (this is semweb  
territory, do it our way), but it always seems weak. I quixotically  
looked to RFC 2616 as a way to argue the legitimacy of such  
jurisdiction within the Internet layer specs. httpRange-14 is annoying  
because it seems to impinge on rights granted by RFCs and assumed by  
the community. If we say it's a good practice note or exhortation and  
buyer beware, that's one thing, but calling it part of the  
"architecture" and giving it protocol status seems different to me.

HTTPbis might be an opportunity to clarify this jurisdiction question  

Received on Friday, 30 January 2009 14:48:55 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 22:56:26 UTC