Subject: Re: 'meta' link relation

From: Julian Reschke <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 03 Mar 2013 18:33:48 +0100

On 2013-02-19 13:56, Bjoern Hoehrmann wrote:
> * Julian Reschke wrote:
>> So it seems that the definition we *could* use is
>> <http://dublincore.org/documents/dcmes-xml/#sec4>, right? Should we then
>> note that thos has been obsoleted, and that "describedby" is more current?
>
> Referencing that document, or any other I've mentioned, is fine by me. I

Well, we need something that actually describes it.

> do not think it's useful to decide whether "describedby" is identical to
> "meta" and whether the latter is "obsolete" now. Problems here would be-

It appears the people (DC) who came up with the relation name first do 
not use it anymore. That certainly sounds like "obsolete" to me.

If somebody thinks that this should be registered as something 
recommended, he/she should write down a definition and register *that*.

Otherwise, we can add the name to the registry, stating where it 
appeared first and that it appears to be abandoned.

> gin with RFC 5988 saying "Refers to a resource providing information
> about the link's context." while the referenced document (and the regis-
> tration template the RFC uses is wrong, there is no Documentation field)

Oh, the horror. I was tempted to open an erratum, but this is just a 
one-time registration form that already has been processed by IANA.

> has "The relationship A 'describedby' B asserts that resource B provides
> a description of resource A." and "provides information about" and "pro-
> vides a description of" is not quite the same thing. And if "meta" is
> obsolete, why does e.g. the FOAF specification not use "describedby" and

Pointer?

> why does the source code of http://www.dublincore.org/ still use "meta",
> and so on...

You may want to ask the maintainers of that site.

I have no problem registering "meta", but it would be really nice if we 
had a proper description, not just a few mentions and one spec that has 
been obsoleted.

Best regards, Julian

---

From: Bjoern Hoehrmann <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 03 Mar 2013 19:26:16 +0100

>> obsolete, why does e.g. the FOAF specification not use "describedby" and

Still at <http://xmlns.com/foaf/spec/#sec-autodesc>.

>had a proper description, not just a few mentions and one spec that has 

I think http://dublincore.org/documents/dcmes-xml/#sec4 is a sufficient
reference for the meaning of the relationship keyword. Not perfect, but
people are unlikely to write dozens of single-page RFCs with one-line
definitions to add a similarily short row to the registry table...
-- 
Björn Höhrmann · mailto:[email-masked] · http://bjoern.hoehrmann.de
Am Badedeich 7 · Telefon: +49(0)160/4415681 · http://www.bjoernsworld.de
25899 Dagebüll · PGP Pub. KeyID: 0xA4357E78 · http://www.websitedev.de/