RE: f2f Agenda Planning -- Issue 62

- Web Linking (Common registry and the HTTP Link header):

http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-nottingham-http-link-header-06

IETF Last-Call ended. A revision with registry clarifications is coming shortly.

- Well-Known URIs

http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-nottingham-site-meta-03

IETF Last-Call ended. This was originally proposed as /site-meta but was replaced with the '/.well-known/' path prefix for HTTP and HTTPS URIs with a lightweight registry. A minor revision is coming shortly with adjustments to the registry structure per last-call feedback.

- Host-meta

http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-hammer-hostmeta-04

An evolving draft. After site-meta was replaced with a common prefix for well-known URIs, host-meta was proposed as a common documents for protocols looking to avoid minting their own policy or metadata document. It is scoped for an entire host (per 3986, the entity controlling the hostname namespace across protocols). Host-meta uses the XRD schema (an OASIS XRI TC committee draft).

- LRDD

http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-hammer-discovery-03

Complete rewrite pending. LRDD was initially proposed as a general purpose discovery mechanism for obtaining resource descriptors using links. The only new component in LRDD was the introduction of host-meta as a place to store templates for transforming resource URI into the URI of their descriptors. Since that entire section has now been moved to the host-meta specification, LRDD no longer offers any new elements other than listing useful link locations.

The next version of LRDD will move it into another direction, providing a more restrictive and specific flow using links for web protocols. Since all the building blocks are now defined elsewhere (namely host-meta and Web linking), LRDD can focus on a single simple profile that is sufficient for protocols such as WebFinger and OpenID.


Hope this helps.

EHL


> -----Original Message-----
> From: www-tag-request@w3.org [mailto:www-tag-request@w3.org] On Behalf
> Of ashok malhotra
> Sent: Friday, November 13, 2009 1:12 PM
> To: noah_mendelsohn@us.ibm.com
> Cc: www-tag@w3.org
> Subject: Re: f2f Agenda Planning -- Issue 62
> 
> Here are some pointers:
> Link header draft:
> http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-nottingham-http-link-header-06
> Site-meta draft http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-nottingham-site-meta-
> 03
> LRDD draft: http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-hammer-discovery-03
> All the best, Ashok
> 
> 
> noah_mendelsohn@us.ibm.com wrote:
> > Thank you Ashok, this looks like a very good start.  It would be very
> > helpful to me if in the next week or two you would, working with Dan
> while
> > I am gone, try to evolve this closer to the form of a F2F agenda
> item.
> > Substantively, I think that means relating this to existing open
> actions,
> > and if appropriate opening new ones.  Also, it would be very helpful
> if
> > you could give links to current versions of references, and suggest
> to
> > other TAG members which should be required reading in advance of our
> > discussion, and which are provided just for reference.
> >
> > Right now, I'm assuming your work on this and Larry's look at issue
> 63
> > will be more or less orthogonal, but please do keep an eye out for
> any
> > areas that might require coordination.  Thank you.
> >
> > Noah
> >
> > --------------------------------------
> > Noah Mendelsohn
> > IBM Corporation
> > One Rogers Street
> > Cambridge, MA 02142
> > 1-617-693-4036
> > --------------------------------------
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > ashok malhotra <ashok.malhotra@oracle.com>
> > Sent by: www-tag-request@w3.org
> > 11/13/2009 08:43 AM
> > Please respond to ashok.malhotra
> >
> >         To:     "www-tag@w3.org" <www-tag@w3.org>
> >         cc:     (bcc: Noah Mendelsohn/Cambridge/IBM)
> >         Subject:        f2f Agenda Planning -- Issue 62
> >
> >
> > Issue 62 is about Uniform Access to Metadata.
> > http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/issues/62
> > My take on the landscape is that we now have several mechanisms for
> > access to Metadata
> > (Link Header, Link, Site-Meta, RDFa) which we are reasonably
> satisfied
> > with and what we need is
> > a document that ties them all together and explains what should be
> used
> > in what situations with examples, etc.
> >
> > Jonathan had taken an action to start work on such a document.  See
> > http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/282
> > If we could have a draft to discuss at the f2f, that would be
> wonderful.
> >
> > As I told some of you, I ran into Mark Nottingham at the TPAC and we
> > talked about a document
> > to tie the threads of Metadata access together.  Mark said he was
> > interested in writing such a document but
> > was constrained by time availability etc.  I have not followed up
> with
> > Mark because, I think, the TAG should
> > first decide what we want to do in the area.
> >

Received on Friday, 13 November 2009 22:25:45 UTC