Subject: [link-relations] NEW RELATION: collection

From: mike amundsen <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 6 Aug 2011 03:30:07 -0400

Relation Name:
collection

Description:
The target IRI points to a resource which represents a list of which
the context  IRI is a member.

References:
http://www.opensearch.org/Specifications/OpenSearch/1.1#Url_rel_values
http://amundsen.com/media-types/maze/format/#link-relations
http://amundsen.com/media-types/collection/format/#link-relations

Notes:
Logged with the Microformats Existing Rel Values.
The OpenSearch definition is different than that given above
("Represents a request for a set of resources.")

Application Data:
None

mca
http://amundsen.com/blog/
http://twitter.com@mamund
http://mamund.com/foaf.rdf#me

#RESTFest 2011 - Aug 18-20
http://restfest.org

---

From: Julian Reschke <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 06 Aug 2011 10:00:19 +0200

> ("Represents a request for a set of resources.")

A few questions:

Is Opensearch using link relations in the RFC 5988 sense? That is, do 
they share the same space of names?

Also, if this is a new relation name, wouldn't "contained-in" or 
something like that be more accurate? (yep, that's bikeshedding)

 > http://amundsen.com/media-types/collection/format/#link-relations

It would be great if there was a single document defining the link 
relation independently of a specific media type.

Best regards, Julian

---

From: mike amundsen <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 6 Aug 2011 04:14:54 -0400

On Sat, Aug 6, 2011 at 04:00, Julian Reschke <[email-masked]> wrote:
> Is Opensearch using link relations in the RFC 5988 sense? That is, do they
> share the same space of names?
Not sure of this question "share the same space of names"?

>
> Also, if this is a new relation name, wouldn't "contained-in" or something
> like that be more accurate? (yep, that's bikeshedding)
yeah, might have been better. At this point I'd prefer to not amend the name.

> It would be great if there was a single document defining the link relation
> independently of a specific media type.
I have a page that only lists the IANA-related link relations:
http://amundsen.com/media-types/linkrelations/registrations/

I can split this into a single document for each relation type, if
that is the preferred approach.

> Best regards, Julian
Thanks for the feedback.

---

From: Julian Reschke <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 06 Aug 2011 10:25:09 +0200

On 2011-08-06 10:14, mike amundsen wrote:
> On Sat, Aug 6, 2011 at 04:00, Julian Reschke<[email-masked]>  wrote:

I'm trying to understand whether the intent for Opensearch's <Url> 
element is to use the same relation names as, for instance, the HTTP 
Link header field.

> that is the preferred approach.

That might be good; but before that we probably should figure out first 
where this document should live  -- RFC 5988 requests "specification 
required", which in IETF-speak means:

       Specification Required - Values and their meanings must be
             documented in a permanent and readily available public
             specification, in sufficient detail so that interoperability
             between independent implementations is possible.  When used,
             Specification Required also implies use of a Designated
             Expert, who will review the public specification and
             evaluate whether it is sufficiently clear to allow
             interoperable implementations.  The intention behind
             "permanent and readily available" is that a document can
             reasonably be expected to be findable and retrievable long
             after IANA assignment of the requested value.  Publication
             of an RFC is an ideal means of achieving this requirement,
             but Specification Required is intended to also cover the
             case of a document published outside of the RFC path.  For
             RFC publication, the normal RFC review process is expected
             to provide the necessary review for interoperability, though
             the Designated Expert may be a particularly well-qualified
             person to perform such a review.

In the past we have rejected requests that pointed to private domains.

Any chance you could put the stuff into an Internet Draft? Template: 
<http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/link-relations/current/msg00152.html>.

Best regards, Julian

---

From: mike amundsen <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 6 Aug 2011 04:30:51 -0400

<quote>
> I'm trying to understand whether the intent for Opensearch's <Url> element
> is to use the same relation names as, for instance, the HTTP Link header
> field.
</quote>
Well, I really can't answer that Q. I included OpenSearch since it
_does_ use the same word as a rel value.

<quote>
> In the past we have rejected requests that pointed to private domains.
</quote>
Both values are logged here:
http://microformats.org/wiki/existing-rel-values#non_HTML_rel_values

mca

On Sat, Aug 6, 2011 at 04:25, Julian Reschke <[email-masked]> wrote:
> I'm trying to understand whether the intent for Opensearch's <Url> element
> is to use the same relation names as, for instance, the HTTP Link header
> field.
>
>>> something

---

From: Mykyta Yevstifeyev <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 06 Aug 2011 11:42:50 +0300

06.08.2011 11:30, mike amundsen wrote:
> <quote>
>> I'm trying to understand whether the intent for Opensearch's<Url>  element

Mike,

This link you point to here and below (I mean 
http://amundsen.com/media-types/linkrelations/registrations/) cannot be 
considered to be fine for RFC 5226 'Specification Required'.  I agree 
here with Julian that writing the Internet-Draft should be sufficient to 
perform registration; the template written by Julian is perfect to be 
used here.

Mykyta

> On Sat, Aug 6, 2011 at 04:25, Julian Reschke<[email-masked]>  wrote:
>> I'm trying to understand whether the intent for Opensearch's<Url>  element
> _______________________________________________
> link-relations mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/link-relations
>

---

From: mike amundsen <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 6 Aug 2011 05:03:04 -0400

Mykyta:

Understood. I will work up the I-D document(s) this weekend and update
my application.

Should I write an I-D for each link rel type? or is it appropriate to
include both link rels in a single I-D?

mca

On Sat, Aug 6, 2011 at 04:42, Mykyta Yevstifeyev <[email-masked]> wrote:
> considered to be fine for RFC 5226 'Specification Required'.  I agree here
> with Julian that writing the Internet-Draft should be sufficient to perform
> registration; the template written by Julian is perfect to be used here.
>
> Mykyta
>
>>
>> mca

---

From: Mykyta Yevstifeyev <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 06 Aug 2011 12:06:14 +0300

> include both link rels in a single I-D?

There is no problem to place both rel types specifications in one I-D.

Mykyta

> On Sat, Aug 6, 2011 at 04:42, Mykyta Yevstifeyev<[email-masked]>  wrote:

---

From: Julian Reschke <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 06 Aug 2011 11:41:40 +0200

> Understood. I will work up the I-D document(s) this weekend and update

+10

> include both link rels in a single I-D?

I think they should go into a single spec.

(let me know if you need xml2rfc assistance)

Best regards, Julian

---

From: Ed Summers <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 6 Aug 2011 09:58:59 -0400

Hi Mike,

+1 for your efforts on registering 'collection'. We have a need for a
<link rel='collection' ...> that could be used in HTML at MPOW.

//Ed

---

From: mike amundsen <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 6 Aug 2011 22:09:59 -0400

I've posted a "pre-draft" version of the I-D here:
http://amundsen.com/media-types/files/item-and-collection/

I would appreciate any advice, pointers, suggestions on improving this
before I post the first submission to the IETF.

I am currently at a loss as to what to include for the Security
Considerations section. I've posted some suggestions/questions within
this draft; feel free to point me in the proper direction.

As soon as I clean up this version, I'll post it to the tracker
(another first for me<g>).

Thanks in advance.

mca

---

From: Mykyta Yevstifeyev <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 07 Aug 2011 07:06:50 +0300

Hi Mike,

I think this draft is almost ready for uploading it to IETF repository.  
I'd like you made several changes/improvements - see below.

In introduction, please include general statement on what is link 
relations.  I propose "RFC 5988 [RFC5988] defined the way of indicating 
resources on the Web.  This document specifies two new reciprocal types 
of such relation..."

Do you need Section 2?  You don't use RFC 219 keywords in the document.

With respect to Security considerations.  I think you should just point 
to RFC 5988, which says everything you need; you new rel types don't add 
anything to security issues of RFC 5988.

Should your draft refer to those documents you pointed to before (I mean 
OpenSearch, and two media types definitions).  You may note in 
Introduction or create a separate Appendix that several known usages exist.

Thanks,
Mykyta Yevstifeyev

07.08.2011 5:09, mike amundsen wrote:
> On Sat, Aug 6, 2011 at 09:58, Ed Summers<[email-masked]>  wrote:
>> Hi Mike,
>>

---

From: mike amundsen <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 7 Aug 2011 01:20:24 -0400

Mykyta:

thanks for the feedback. i'll work up the edits and repost shortly.

mca

On Sun, Aug 7, 2011 at 00:06, Mykyta Yevstifeyev <[email-masked]> wrote:
> Hi Mike,
>
> I think this draft is almost ready for uploading it to IETF repository.  I'd
> like you made several changes/improvements - see below.
>
> In introduction, please include general statement on what is link relations.
>  I propose "RFC 5988 [RFC5988] defined the way of indicating resources on
> the Web.  This document specifies two new reciprocal types of such
> relation..."
>
> With respect to Security considerations.  I think you should just point to
> RFC 5988, which says everything you need; you new rel types don't add
> OpenSearch, and two media types definitions).  You may note in Introduction
> or create a separate Appendix that several known usages exist.
>
> Thanks,
> Mykyta Yevstifeyev
>

---

From: Julian Reschke <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 07 Aug 2011 15:32:31 +0200

On 2011-08-07 04:09, mike amundsen wrote:
> ...

OK. Looks good so far.

A general question: what's the relation between "up" and "collection"? 
Do you see "up" as a special case in that it mentions document hierarchies?

Editorial:

- as Mykyta noted: no need for Section 2 if you don't need the keywords

- the examples use a JSON vocabulary without saying what it is; you may 
want to reference "your" media types

- alternatively or additionally, add Link header field examples

- IANA considerations: replace "this document" with a reference to the 
actual section

- I18N: just point to RFC 5988, Section 8.

> this draft; feel free to point me in the proper direction.

As Mykyta said: cite RFC 5988 and then think about additional issues.

>     Consideration for links that cross admin boundaries?
>     Infected Sites?
>     Pointing to malicious content?

...and maybe link loops. Not sure what can be said; all of these seem to 
generic to any kind of following hyperlinks.

> ...

Best regards, Julian

---

From: mike amundsen <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 9 Aug 2011 23:21:30 -0400

I've updated my pre-draft I-D for 'collection' and 'item' Link Relation Types:
http://amundsen.com/media-types/files/item-and-collection/

per suggestions from Mykyta & Julian:
- added opening sentence in Abstract and Introduction that refers to RFC5988
- added a reference to the existing media types (OpenSearch, Maze+XML,
and Collection+JSON) in the Introduction
- dropped the 2119 section
- removed the JSON examples and replaced them w/ Link Header examples;
cleaned up the examples a bit, too.
- modified Security and I18N w/ references to appropriate sections in 5988
- modified the IANA Considerations section "Reference" item per Julian
(is this what you meant?)

Julian:
regarding the existing "up" link-rel-type and the proposed
"collection" link-rel-type...
I note the def for "up" (in 5988) refers to a "hierarchy" which I mean
to avoid in the case of "collection." IOW, i think "collection" can be
used not only for navigating hierarchies (if that is what is needed),
but also to navigate filtered sets or groups that are not in a
hierarchy.

Thanks again for the feedback. I look forward to additional remarks.

mca

On Sun, Aug 7, 2011 at 09:32, Julian Reschke <[email-masked]> wrote:
> A general question: what's the relation between "up" and "collection"? Do
> you see "up" as a special case in that it mentions document hierarchies?
>
> Editorial:
>
> - the examples use a JSON vocabulary without saying what it is; you may want
> to reference "your" media types
>

---

From: Mykyta Yevstifeyev <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 10 Aug 2011 06:39:00 +0300

Mike,

Please upload this draft with <https://datatracker.ietf.org/submit/> to 
allow further comments.

Mykyta

10.08.2011 6:21, mike amundsen wrote:
> per suggestions from Mykyta&  Julian:
> On Sun, Aug 7, 2011 at 09:32, Julian Reschke<[email-masked]>  wrote:

---

From: mike amundsen <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 9 Aug 2011 23:55:34 -0400

Mykyta:

Ok, will do.

One procedural Q. I will be submitting both the TXT and the XML file.
I assume the file names should be:
draft-amundsen-item-and-collection-link-relations-00.txt
draft-amundsen-item-and-collection-link-relations-00.xml

IOW, i supply the "00" and i supply the file extension.

thanks.

mca

---

From: Mykyta Yevstifeyev <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 10 Aug 2011 07:01:20 +0300

> draft-amundsen-item-and-collection-link-relations-00.xml

Yes, the TXT version you generate with xml2rfc and supply there is 
obligatory; XML version isn't, but you may also upload it.

Please, before uploading, fix the Apps-discuss list to link-relations 
list in editorial note after Abstract.

Mykyta

> On Tue, Aug 9, 2011 at 23:39, Mykyta Yevstifeyev<[email-masked]>  wrote:
>> Mike,
>>
>> Please upload this draft with<https://datatracker.ietf.org/submit/>  to
>> allow further comments.
>>
>> Mykyta
>>

---

From: mike amundsen <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 10 Aug 2011 00:05:25 -0400

ok, will fix the email link and upload TXT and XML.

thanks for the assist.

mca

On Wed, Aug 10, 2011 at 00:01, Mykyta Yevstifeyev <[email-masked]> wrote:
> Please, before uploading, fix the Apps-discuss list to link-relations list
> in editorial note after Abstract.
>
> Mykyta
>
>>
>>>>> Do

---

From: Mykyta Yevstifeyev <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 10 Aug 2011 07:55:50 +0300

Mike,

I've recently seen your new draft -- 
http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-amundsen-item-and-collection-link-relations-00.  
Please see some comments below.

Abstract (and also Section 1):

>     RFC 5988 [RFC5988] defined the way of indicating resources on the
>     Web.

Maybe, "of indicating relationships between resources on the Web"?

Section 1:

>     1.  OpenSearch 1.1: see<http://www.opensearch.org/Specifications/
>         OpenSearch/1.1#Url_rel_values>
>
>     2.  Maze+XML: see
>         <http://amundsen.com/media-types/maze/format/#link-relations>
>
>     3.  Collection+JSON: see<http://amundsen.com/media-types/collection/
>         format/#link-relations>

Maybe you can make these specs Informative references, in the following way:

>     1.  OpenSearch 1.1: see Section 4.5.4.1 of [OpenSearch]
>
>     2.  Maze+XML: see Section 3 of [Maze]
>
>     3.  Collection+JSON: see Section 2 of [CollectionJSON]

The references should be:

> [OpenSearch]  D. Clinton, "OpenSearch 1.1", Work in Progress, (Date), 
> <http://www.opensearch.org/Specifications/OpenSearch/1.1/>.
> [Maze]        M. Amundsen, "Maze+XML - Format", Web Page, December 
> 2010, <http://amundsen.com/media-types/maze/format/>.
> [CollectionJSON]
>               M. Amundsen, "Collection+JSON - Document Format", Web 
> Page, July 2011, 
> <http://amundsen.com/media-types/collection/format/#link-relations>

I don't think it will be a problem to translate these references into 
xml2rfc format.

In Sections 3.1 and 3.2 "Notes" and "Application Data" may safely be 
omitted.

I suppose you may add a statement similar to one in the last paragraph 
of Appendix C of RFC 5741 
(http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc5741#appendix-C) in your document.

Not a comment: How do you plan to process this document?  As 
AD-sponsored submission 
(http://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/ad-sponsoring-docs.html) or 
Independent Submission to RFC Editor (see RFC 4846)?

Thanks,
Mykyta Yevstifeyev

10.08.2011 7:05, mike amundsen wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 10, 2011 at 00:01, Mykyta Yevstifeyev<[email-masked]>  wrote:

---

From: Julian Reschke <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 10 Aug 2011 08:53:56 +0200

> ok, will fix the email link and upload TXT and XML.

+1 (except for the mailing list change. link-relations really isn't 
supposed to be a discussion list...)

Thanks, Mike!

Best regards, Julian

---

From: mike amundsen <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 10 Aug 2011 11:21:36 -0400

> Maybe, "of indicating relationships between resources on the Web"?

How about this:

"RFC 5988 [RFC5988] standardized a means of indicating the
relationships between resources on the Web."

the content for this sentence comes from Section 1 of RFC5988.

>> [Maze]        M. Amundsen, "Maze+XML - Format", Web Page, December 2010,
>> <http://amundsen.com/media-types/maze/format/>.
>> [CollectionJSON]
>>              M. Amundsen, "Collection+JSON - Document Format", Web Page,
>> July 2011,

sounds fine. i have some inline examples of reference markup for the
RFC XML; should be no problem.

> In Sections 3.1 and 3.2 "Notes" and "Application Data" may safely be

Done.

>
> I suppose you may add a statement similar to one in the last paragraph of
> Appendix C of RFC 5741 (http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc5741#appendix-C) in
> your document.

Yes, I have a couple people in mind already<g>.

>
> Not a comment: How do you plan to process this document?  As AD-sponsored
> submission (http://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/ad-sponsoring-docs.html) or

Doing some reading and will post again to get feedback.

MCA

>>>>>> I've updated my pre-draft I-D for 'collection' and 'item' Link
>>>>>> Relation
>>>>>> Types:

---

From: mike amundsen <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 10 Aug 2011 11:23:41 -0400

<snip>
> +1 (except for the mailing list change. link-relations really isn't supposed
> to be a discussion list...)
</snip>

Hrmm....

ok, i'll change this back to apps-discuss per the template you
originally supplied.

Mike

On Wed, Aug 10, 2011 at 02:53, Julian Reschke <[email-masked]> wrote:
> +1 (except for the mailing list change. link-relations really isn't supposed
> to be a discussion list...)
>
> Thanks, Mike!
>
> Best regards, Julian
>

---

From: mike amundsen <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 10 Aug 2011 11:25:37 -0400

Operational question:.

Once I make the suggested changes to the "00" draft, do i just submit
again to the data tracker as "01"? Or do I need to wait for some
formal processing of the existing "00" entry first?

---

From: Peter Saint-Andre <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 10 Aug 2011 09:28:53 -0600

> formal processing of the existing "00" entry first?

Just submit 01.

Peter

-- 
Peter Saint-Andre
https://stpeter.im/