From ioseb.dzmanashvili@gmail.com Sun May 26 04:24:09 2013 Return-Path: X-Original-To: link-relations@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: link-relations@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9EF7B21F9003 for ; Sun, 26 May 2013 04:24:09 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.598 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.598 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id LUMHUpaIbxa1 for ; Sun, 26 May 2013 04:24:09 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-we0-x22e.google.com (mail-we0-x22e.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:400c:c03::22e]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id BD94521F8FBA for ; Sun, 26 May 2013 04:24:08 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mail-we0-f174.google.com with SMTP id x50so1862227wes.5 for ; Sun, 26 May 2013 04:24:07 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=date:from:to:message-id:subject:x-mailer:mime-version:content-type; bh=y+FzkLYOFHcTeDN9KxYvgo83+wyKnYTKZIOUWYOc0SY=; b=HAJf2cP6AjoJWFLGYPspwwpCSdTrFFiQdvRGIpTLmZyoldlXpxWVCI2hQmtGMEiMzI /I9muTMEPa8oxc1v3nxnqtZEJFFrbjeRDKuHupMOY9Ww9wpzg4E+c+T0feU/Qhn4gh6x h6oAVQDAxI6Lxv9RwvAVkfG/i569fPMEkeWBaTApBByBYYlG+AECMHFANgldYhdetGMO lCQtoVUiLHL4C+wBljl80rTRIcq5pR2VwKRHa5OnSvLy2j2vtv/EgSZrpx7ULrwZ4O6g Ei3DfSMoLO3yhckgx9jfxPi3aQnY/SYQlIEATNZCLBh5uMlqdQsxn09zjQjKw+JdObdC CqKA== X-Received: by 10.180.210.242 with SMTP id mx18mr4892434wic.14.1369567447899; Sun, 26 May 2013 04:24:07 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [192.168.1.7] ([176.73.174.236]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPSA id z52sm34984757eea.1.2013.05.26.04.24.06 for (version=TLSv1 cipher=RC4-SHA bits=128/128); Sun, 26 May 2013 04:24:07 -0700 (PDT) Date: Sun, 26 May 2013 15:24:04 +0400 From: Ioseb Dzmanashvili To: "=?utf-8?Q?link-relations=40ietf.org?=" Message-ID: Subject: NEW RELATION: property and context X-Mailer: sparrow 1.6.4 (build 1178) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="51a1f0d4_b03e0c6_1b1" X-BeenThere: link-relations@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 26 May 2013 11:24:09 -0000 --51a1f0d4_b03e0c6_1b1 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline Dear All, I've submitted new draft for the "property" and "context" link relation types: http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-property-and-context-link-relations-00 Description: - This specification defines link relation types that may be used to express the relationships between a resource and associated properties or between a resource and it's context. - The "property" and "context" link relations are intentionally generic, and they can be used with multiple media types in a wide variety of use cases - The "property" Link Relation Type: When included in a response, the "property" link relation identifies a target resource that represents a property of the context resource. - The "context" Link Relation Type: When included in a response, the "context" link relation identifies a target resource that represents a context document of which the context resource is a member. Could you please review? Thanks in advance! Best regards, ioseb -- Ioseb Dzmanashvili AzRy LLC Software Architect #8, Chachava str. Tbilisi, 0159, Georgia Mobile: +(995) 99753388 github.com/ioseb twitter.com/iosebi --51a1f0d4_b03e0c6_1b1 Content-Type: text/html; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Disposition: inline
Dear All,

I've submitted new draft for the = =22property=22 and =22context=22 link relation types: http://tools.ietf.o= rg/html/draft-property-and-context-link-relations-00

=
Description: 

- This specification def= ines link relation types that may be used to express the relationships be= tween a resource and associated properties or between a resource and it's= context.
- The =22property=22 and =22context=22 link relations= are intentionally generic, and they can be used with multiple media type= s in a wide variety of use cases
- The =22property=22 Link Rela= tion Type: When included in a response, the =22property=22 link relation = identifies a target resource that represents a property of the context re= source.
- The =22context=22 Link Relation Type: When included i= n a response, the =22context=22 link relation identifies a target resourc= e that represents a context document of which the context resource is a m= ember.

Could you please review=3F
Than= ks in advance=21

Best regards,
ioseb
-- 
Ioseb Dzmanashvili
AzRy LLC
Software Architect
=238, Chachava str.
Tbilisi, 01= 59, Georgia
Mobile: +(995) 99753388
github.com/ioseb<= /div>
twitter.com/iosebi
--51a1f0d4_b03e0c6_1b1-- From ioseb.dzmanashvili@gmail.com Sun May 26 04:51:21 2013 Return-Path: X-Original-To: link-relations@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: link-relations@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id F1D5121F9003; Sun, 26 May 2013 04:51:20 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.998 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.998 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.600, BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, J_CHICKENPOX_102=0.6, J_CHICKENPOX_52=0.6] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id mYU7OHI1Xbnu; Sun, 26 May 2013 04:51:20 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-wg0-x229.google.com (mail-wg0-x229.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:400c:c00::229]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 83B0A21F9017; Sun, 26 May 2013 04:51:18 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mail-wg0-f41.google.com with SMTP id k13so1476769wgh.2 for ; Sun, 26 May 2013 04:51:17 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=date:from:to:cc:message-id:in-reply-to:references:subject:x-mailer :mime-version:content-type; bh=SUSWvmG777bylWLCgbWiXKIVDHpz5fI3fa+1PPHch2c=; b=KaTCQfSA6E8ELHxiBlgjPw1G4S46OKoCvPeuMPvFN7eUBxOFhDX0xhdukUp8eR8wxw 2vbNuHD7QZDEoKi0RTzWQs8l5bQNXLBIBrH9o7XQnM3Lq5BnmWjrM1oZQiydqmb8KEn2 6NiKpDoC15/T16Tji2AWL592VvYRGkf7aOIQsXlscfl22v6R8+i8uGTfTGud3BdxFmFp wTzya961qv6rqSv3+HAvLIF7388aSkTghnS4+6wWuO7WhmWOObqhZXhPTGsBu7TVWjXB kbiySVfFmqaUYTxX0MvjmKXP3sAWfYduvHnNZdCx4aBxIfWJgEpmrVxePjNqlrHxw6mL 96NQ== X-Received: by 10.194.216.39 with SMTP id on7mr5367429wjc.4.1369569077676; Sun, 26 May 2013 04:51:17 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [192.168.1.7] ([176.73.174.236]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPSA id f1sm6661949eem.17.2013.05.26.04.51.15 for (version=TLSv1 cipher=RC4-SHA bits=128/128); Sun, 26 May 2013 04:51:16 -0700 (PDT) Date: Sun, 26 May 2013 15:51:14 +0400 From: Ioseb Dzmanashvili To: mca Message-ID: <87B38357AED34BF89465EC5111A090EA@gmail.com> In-Reply-To: References: <4038B5FE76874C54A819A07FE192AEF8@gmail.com> Subject: Re: [apps-discuss] NEW RELATION: property and context X-Mailer: sparrow 1.6.4 (build 1178) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="51a1f732_22221a70_1b1" Cc: IETF Apps Discuss , "=?utf-8?Q?link-relations=40ietf.org?=" X-BeenThere: link-relations@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 26 May 2013 11:51:21 -0000 --51a1f732_22221a70_1b1 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline Hi Mike, Thanks for response! > How are these different from the "collection" and "item" link relations? > IOW, what can be described by "property" and "context" that cannot be described by "collection" and "item"? It depends how we look at things. For example if if we've a resource that is a photo(or video etc...) we can not describe it as a collection. If we've resource which is a property of that photo we can indicate the context resource of this photo with the "context" link relation, as i understand and see it the "collection" link relation doesn't properly describe photo which definitely is not a collection of items itself. Another example is a file which has various attributes(or properties), if for example i want to express these properties of the file as links i think the "property" link relation will be more correct rather than the "item" link relation IMHO. ioseb On Sunday, May 26, 2013 at 3:38 PM, mca wrote: > How are these different from the "collection" and "item" link relations? > IOW, what can be described by "property" and "context" that cannot be described by "collection" and "item"? > On May 26, 2013 1:22 PM, "Ioseb Dzmanashvili" wrote: > > Dear All, > > > > I've submitted new draft for the "property" and "context" link relation types: http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-property-and-context-link-relations-00 > > > > Description: > > > > - This specification defines link relation types that may be used to express the relationships between a resource and associated properties or between a resource and it's context. > > - The "property" and "context" link relations are intentionally generic, and they can be used with multiple media types in a wide variety of use cases > > > > - The "property" Link Relation Type: When included in a response, the "property" link relation identifies a target resource that represents a property of the context resource. > > - The "context" Link Relation Type: When included in a response, the "context" link relation identifies a target resource that represents a context document of which the context resource is a member. > > > > > > Could you please review? > > Thanks in advance! > > > > > > Best regards, > > ioseb > > -- > > Ioseb Dzmanashvili > > AzRy LLC > > Software Architect > > #8, Chachava str. > > Tbilisi, 0159, Georgia > > > > Mobile: +(995) 99753388 > > github.com/ioseb (http://github.com/ioseb) > > twitter.com/iosebi (http://twitter.com/iosebi) > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > apps-discuss mailing list > > apps-discuss@ietf.org (mailto:apps-discuss@ietf.org) > > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/apps-discuss > > --51a1f732_22221a70_1b1 Content-Type: text/html; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Disposition: inline
Hi Mike,

Thanks for respons= e=21

> How are these different from the = =22collection=22 and =22item=22 link relations=3F
> IOW, wha= t can be described by =22property=22 and =22context=22 that cannot be des= cribed by =22collection=22 and =22item=22=3F

It = depends how we look at things. =46or example if if we've a resource that = is a photo(or video etc...) we can not describe it as a collection. If we= 've resource which is a property of that photo we can indicate the contex= t resource of this photo with the =22context=22 link relation, as i under= stand and see it the =22collection=22 link relation doesn't properly desc= ribe photo which definitely is not a collection of items itself.

Another example is a file which has various attributes(o= r properties), if for example i want to express these properties of the f= ile as links i think the =22property=22 link relation will be more correc= t rather than the =22item=22 link relation IMHO.

ioseb
=20

On Sunday, May 26, 201= 3 at 3:38 PM, mca wrote:

How are these diff= erent from the =22collection=22 and =22item=22 link relations=3F

IOW, what can be described by =22property=22 and =22co= ntext=22 that cannot be described by =22collection=22 and =22item=22=3F

On May 26, 2013 1:22 PM, =22Ioseb Dzmanashvili=22 <ioseb.dzmanashvili=40gmail.com> wrote:
Dear All,


Description: 

- Th= is specification defines link relation types that may be used to exp= ress the relationships between a resource and associated properties = or between a resource and it's context.
- The =22property=22 and =22context=22 link relations are intentiona= lly generic, and they can be used with multiple media types in a wid= e variety of use cases
- The =22property=22 Link Rel= ation Type: When included in a response, the =22property=22 link rel= ation identifies a target resource that represents a property of the cont= ext resource.
- The =22context=22 Link Relation Type: When included in a= response, the =22context=22 link relation identifies a target resource t= hat represents a context document of which the context resource is a memb= er.

Could you please review=3F<= /div>
Thanks in advance=21

Best regard= s,
ioseb
-- 
Ioseb Dzmanashvili
AzRy LLC
Software Architect
=238, Chachava str.
Tbil= isi, 0159, Georgia
Mobile: +(995) 99753388

=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F= =5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F= =5F=5F=5F
apps-discuss mailing list
apps-discuss=40ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/apps-discuss<= br>
=20 =20 =20 =20
=20

--51a1f732_22221a70_1b1-- From mca@amundsen.com Sun May 26 04:52:43 2013 Return-Path: X-Original-To: link-relations@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: link-relations@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9838721F8F69 for ; Sun, 26 May 2013 04:52:43 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.077 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.077 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.900, BAYES_00=-2.599, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, J_CHICKENPOX_102=0.6, J_CHICKENPOX_38=0.6, J_CHICKENPOX_52=0.6, NO_RELAYS=-0.001] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id qbtkSZqiqkw7 for ; Sun, 26 May 2013 04:52:42 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-we0-x22e.google.com (mail-we0-x22e.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:400c:c03::22e]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2C96D21F9017 for ; Sun, 26 May 2013 04:52:38 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mail-we0-f174.google.com with SMTP id x50so1877857wes.33 for ; Sun, 26 May 2013 04:52:38 -0700 (PDT) X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=google.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc:content-type:x-gm-message-state; bh=+lO86Ko2/I8+4Ae9yT0+wsZFDk+708jxqS7xTN2QQ3k=; b=SW4jLtQdROgybLBNUCyHfuIewatIg3lD/5oCjHcJeT2gB+24qHxFqpuy2LvX+FPCDm btg5YVTxMIOlWdsa/nv3kROy2oGSb7gzyqdSZD8T7HDMEONklwxGnqRfhkutysv1hyo5 3/9DWtvW7yOnkCwLSWNgbVbTd45I1424n5zBHqv2BAHGV9BEKXL13OCbpo4gPCrYKfuh fUBNAmmtPAlKlmf0imTagWwwVBw1GU4AJJd2w9v7YA7f18ILb5Gj69iIso6kLXEYHzm4 Q6xr2SgKc+Kaz5+bi19zjtw63SvkUzq8SOBSfOI/AIxzpZkjZzdFSuQCnC2kuPJ6N+E0 MYGA== X-Received: by 10.180.86.38 with SMTP id m6mr4999663wiz.25.1369569158337; Sun, 26 May 2013 04:52:38 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.194.239.138 with HTTP; Sun, 26 May 2013 04:52:18 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <87B38357AED34BF89465EC5111A090EA@gmail.com> References: <4038B5FE76874C54A819A07FE192AEF8@gmail.com> <87B38357AED34BF89465EC5111A090EA@gmail.com> From: mca Date: Sun, 26 May 2013 07:52:18 -0400 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [apps-discuss] NEW RELATION: property and context To: Ioseb Dzmanashvili Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=f46d044306422da9aa04dd9dab73 X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQntR2Fn2wLhK6U/t+yJxKE5AXzEGsvpNO5k5a02tjFvCgczSYkS0bYP/hXXhKGrAIzNLlp6 Cc: IETF Apps Discuss , "link-relations@ietf.org" X-BeenThere: link-relations@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 26 May 2013 11:52:43 -0000 --f46d044306422da9aa04dd9dab73 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Ioseb: so your thinking is that the attributes of a file is not a "collection"? mca +1.859.757.1449 skype: mca.amundsen http://amundsen.com/blog/ http://twitter.com/mamund https://github.com/mamund http://www.linkedin.com/in/mikeamundsen On Sun, May 26, 2013 at 7:51 AM, Ioseb Dzmanashvili < ioseb.dzmanashvili@gmail.com> wrote: > Hi Mike, > > Thanks for response! > > > How are these different from the "collection" and "item" link relations? > > IOW, what can be described by "property" and "context" that cannot be > described by "collection" and "item"? > > It depends how we look at things. For example if if we've a resource that > is a photo(or video etc...) we can not describe it as a collection. If > we've resource which is a property of that photo we can indicate the > context resource of this photo with the "context" link relation, as i > understand and see it the "collection" link relation doesn't properly > describe photo which definitely is not a collection of items itself. > > Another example is a file which has various attributes(or properties), if > for example i want to express these properties of the file as links i think > the "property" link relation will be more correct rather than the "item" > link relation IMHO. > > ioseb > > On Sunday, May 26, 2013 at 3:38 PM, mca wrote: > > How are these different from the "collection" and "item" link relations? > > IOW, what can be described by "property" and "context" that cannot be > described by "collection" and "item"? > On May 26, 2013 1:22 PM, "Ioseb Dzmanashvili" < > ioseb.dzmanashvili@gmail.com> wrote: > > Dear All, > > I've submitted new draft for the "property" and "context" link relation > types: > http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-property-and-context-link-relations-00 > > Description: > > - This specification defines link relation types that may be used to > express the relationships between a resource and associated properties or > between a resource and it's context. > - The "property" and "context" link relations are intentionally generic, > and they can be used with multiple media types in a wide variety of use > cases > - The "property" Link Relation Type: When included in a response, the > "property" link relation identifies a target resource that represents a > property of the context resource. > - The "context" Link Relation Type: When included in a response, the > "context" link relation identifies a target resource that represents a > context document of which the context resource is a member. > > Could you please review? > Thanks in advance! > > Best regards, > ioseb > -- > Ioseb Dzmanashvili > AzRy LLC > Software Architect > #8, Chachava str. > Tbilisi, 0159, Georgia > Mobile: +(995) 99753388 > github.com/ioseb > twitter.com/iosebi > > _______________________________________________ > apps-discuss mailing list > apps-discuss@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/apps-discuss > > > --f46d044306422da9aa04dd9dab73 Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Ioseb:

so your thinking is that t= he attributes of a file is not a "collection"?



On Sun, May 26, 2013 at 7:51 AM, Ioseb D= zmanashvili <ioseb.dzmanashvili@gmail.com> wrote:=
Hi Mike,

Thanks for response!=

> How are these differe= nt from the "collection" and "item" link relations?
> IOW, what can be described by "property" and "cont= ext" that cannot be described by "collection" and "item= "?

It depends how we look at things. Fo= r example if if we've a resource that is a photo(or video etc...) we ca= n not describe it as a collection. If we've resource which is a propert= y of that photo we can indicate the context resource of this photo with the= "context" link relation, as i understand and see it the "co= llection" link relation doesn't properly describe photo which defi= nitely is not a collection of items itself.

Another example is a file which has various attributes(= or properties), if for example i want to express these properties of the fi= le as links i think the "property" link relation will be more cor= rect rather than the "item" link relation IMHO.

io= seb
=20

On Sunday, May 26, 2013 at 3:38 = PM, mca wrote:

How are these different = from the "collection" and "item" link relations?

IOW, what can be described by "property" and "= ;context" that cannot be described by "collection" and "= ;item"?

On May 26, 2013 1:22 PM, "Ioseb Dzmanashvili" <ioseb.dzmanashvili@= gmail.com> wrote:
=
Dear All,

I've submitted new draft for = the "property" and "context" link relation types:=A0http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-property-and-conte= xt-link-relations-00

Description:=A0

- This sp= ecification defines link relation types that may be used=A0to express the r= elationships between a resource and associated=A0properties or between a re= source and it's context.
- The "property" and "context" link relations are = intentionally=A0generic, and they can be used with multiple media types in = a wide=A0variety of use cases
- The "property" Li= nk Relation Type:=A0When included in a response, the "property" l= ink relation identifies a target resource that represents a property of the= context resource.
- The "context" Link Relation Type:=A0When included in = a response, the "context" link relation identifies a target resou= rce that represents a context document of which the context resource is a m= ember.

Could you please review?
Thanks in advance!

Best regards,
=
ioseb
--=A0
Ioseb Dzmanashvili
AzRy= LLC
Software Architect
#8, Chachava str.
Tbilisi,= 0159, Georgia
Mobile: +(995) 99753388

_______________________________________________
apps-discuss mailing list
apps-discuss@iet= f.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/apps-discuss

 =20 =20 =20 =20
=20


--f46d044306422da9aa04dd9dab73-- From ioseb.dzmanashvili@gmail.com Sun May 26 05:00:27 2013 Return-Path: X-Original-To: link-relations@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: link-relations@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 82CD321F8551; Sun, 26 May 2013 05:00:27 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.198 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.198 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-1.000, BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, J_CHICKENPOX_102=0.6, J_CHICKENPOX_38=0.6, J_CHICKENPOX_52=0.6, J_CHICKENPOX_62=0.6] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id iqZVJFTtAo+T; Sun, 26 May 2013 05:00:26 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-wi0-x235.google.com (mail-wi0-x235.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:400c:c05::235]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id EBEBC21F85D1; Sun, 26 May 2013 05:00:25 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mail-wi0-f181.google.com with SMTP id hi5so853713wib.2 for ; Sun, 26 May 2013 05:00:25 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=date:from:to:cc:message-id:in-reply-to:references:subject:x-mailer :mime-version:content-type; bh=8H0vG9ZKp32W7E/BlQfnFmURAOnP25eduORAP8U9YSw=; b=ESJYeky+21zkl3g12RqyoAJ0yv0R5e/DG264v2t7WLkjLPey9wlNJPOs7lS6H/ZnX+ hNF3Ewt2KPCcC2yGl3Mb7sVRYE4S1zJPkhI7xnIfLfa0vrfUYzGYCJNZ1GntD7BBUJfT PDtF5si7i8Fts4tafZbQa2+fqos32Ypge7qcXNEts6WXmQecCMi/NKPEmwP6yIUUpPBb ANyC+9mCSiNLhCI7t/ZQuDuISfoOkhUDBy34WCk9/35nztbl7UYcuR1lopH7cCd3SQWw c6cRhYY2bZ3QmziFWo+Fy6N+Oxf3dtLsqGsKGYJeT/dF781xzamw2HyRYjHAmlmrC28y WIGA== X-Received: by 10.194.134.161 with SMTP id pl1mr5364601wjb.31.1369569625004; Sun, 26 May 2013 05:00:25 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [192.168.1.7] ([176.73.174.236]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPSA id bo9sm21325251eeb.9.2013.05.26.05.00.22 for (version=TLSv1 cipher=RC4-SHA bits=128/128); Sun, 26 May 2013 05:00:24 -0700 (PDT) Date: Sun, 26 May 2013 16:00:21 +0400 From: Ioseb Dzmanashvili To: mca Message-ID: <12C4054A6F864F9B8A7E6058ADC14687@gmail.com> In-Reply-To: References: <4038B5FE76874C54A819A07FE192AEF8@gmail.com> <87B38357AED34BF89465EC5111A090EA@gmail.com> Subject: Re: [apps-discuss] NEW RELATION: property and context X-Mailer: sparrow 1.6.4 (build 1178) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="51a1f955_5577f8e1_1b1" Cc: IETF Apps Discuss , "=?utf-8?Q?link-relations=40ietf.org?=" X-BeenThere: link-relations@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 26 May 2013 12:00:27 -0000 --51a1f955_5577f8e1_1b1 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline Mike, > so your thinking is that the attributes of a file is not a "collection"? No, i think that attributes of a file is a collection, but i do not think that a file is a collection of attributes. Another example: If i have an article with a photo(or whatever else), does it makes that article collection of photos(or other properties which are part of that article)? If i'm viewing photo can i say that hey here is the collection which this photo belongs to? or wouldn't it be more precise if i say hey here is the context to which this photo belongs to? ioseb On Sunday, May 26, 2013 at 3:52 PM, mca wrote: > Ioseb: > > so your thinking is that the attributes of a file is not a "collection"? > > mca > +1.859.757.1449 > skype: mca.amundsen > http://amundsen.com/blog/ > http://twitter.com/mamund > https://github.com/mamund > http://www.linkedin.com/in/mikeamundsen > > > > On Sun, May 26, 2013 at 7:51 AM, Ioseb Dzmanashvili wrote: > > Hi Mike, > > > > Thanks for response! > > > > > How are these different from the "collection" and "item" link relations? > > > IOW, what can be described by "property" and "context" that cannot be described by "collection" and "item"? > > > > It depends how we look at things. For example if if we've a resource that is a photo(or video etc...) we can not describe it as a collection. If we've resource which is a property of that photo we can indicate the context resource of this photo with the "context" link relation, as i understand and see it the "collection" link relation doesn't properly describe photo which definitely is not a collection of items itself. > > > > Another example is a file which has various attributes(or properties), if for example i want to express these properties of the file as links i think the "property" link relation will be more correct rather than the "item" link relation IMHO. > > > > ioseb > > > > On Sunday, May 26, 2013 at 3:38 PM, mca wrote: > > > > > How are these different from the "collection" and "item" link relations? > > > IOW, what can be described by "property" and "context" that cannot be described by "collection" and "item"? > > > On May 26, 2013 1:22 PM, "Ioseb Dzmanashvili" wrote: > > > > Dear All, > > > > > > > > I've submitted new draft for the "property" and "context" link relation types: http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-property-and-context-link-relations-00 > > > > > > > > Description: > > > > > > > > - This specification defines link relation types that may be used to express the relationships between a resource and associated properties or between a resource and it's context. > > > > - The "property" and "context" link relations are intentionally generic, and they can be used with multiple media types in a wide variety of use cases > > > > > > > > - The "property" Link Relation Type: When included in a response, the "property" link relation identifies a target resource that represents a property of the context resource. > > > > - The "context" Link Relation Type: When included in a response, the "context" link relation identifies a target resource that represents a context document of which the context resource is a member. > > > > > > > > > > > > Could you please review? > > > > Thanks in advance! > > > > > > > > > > > > Best regards, > > > > ioseb > > > > -- > > > > Ioseb Dzmanashvili > > > > AzRy LLC > > > > Software Architect > > > > #8, Chachava str. > > > > Tbilisi, 0159, Georgia > > > > > > > > Mobile: +(995) 99753388 > > > > github.com/ioseb (http://github.com/ioseb) > > > > twitter.com/iosebi (http://twitter.com/iosebi) > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > > > apps-discuss mailing list > > > > apps-discuss@ietf.org (mailto:apps-discuss@ietf.org) > > > > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/apps-discuss > > > > > > > --51a1f955_5577f8e1_1b1 Content-Type: text/html; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Disposition: inline
Mike,

> so your thi= nking is that the attributes of a file is not a =22collection=22=3F
=

No, i think that attributes of a file is a collection= , but i do not think that a file is a collection of attributes. 

Another example:

If i have= an article with a photo(or whatever else), does it makes that article co= llection of photos(or other properties which are part of that article)=3F= If i'm viewing photo can i say that hey here is the collection which thi= s photo belongs to=3F or wouldn't it be more precise if i say hey here is= the context to which this photo belongs to=3F

i= oseb
=20

On Sunday, May 26, 201= 3 at 3:52 PM, mca wrote:

Ioseb:

<= /div>
so your thinking is that the attributes of a fil= e is not a =22collection=22=3F


On Sun, May 26, 2013 at 7:51 AM, Ioseb Dzmanashvili <ioseb.dzmanashvili=40gmail.com> wrot= e:
Hi Mike,

Thanks for respons= e=21

> How are these different from= the =22collection=22 and =22item=22 link relations=3F
> IOW, what can be described by =22property=22 and =22context=22 = that cannot be described by =22collection=22 and =22item=22=3F
=
It depends how we look at things. =46or example if i= f we've a resource that is a photo(or video etc...) we can not describe i= t as a collection. If we've resource which is a property of that photo we= can indicate the context resource of this photo with the =22context=22 l= ink relation, as i understand and see it the =22collection=22 link relati= on doesn't properly describe photo which definitely is not a collection o= f items itself.

Another example is a file which has various attribute= s(or properties), if for example i want to express these properties of th= e file as links i think the =22property=22 link relation will be more cor= rect rather than the =22item=22 link relation IMHO.

ioseb
=
=20

On Sunday, May 26, 2013 = at 3:38 PM, mca wrote:

How are these diff= erent from the =22collection=22 and =22item=22 link relations=3F

IOW, what can be described by =22property=22 and =22co= ntext=22 that cannot be described by =22collection=22 and =22item=22=3F

On May 26, 2013 1:22 PM, =22Ioseb Dzmanashvili=22 <ioseb.dzm= anashvili=40gmail.com> wrote:
Dear All,

I've submitted new draft for th= e =22property=22 and =22context=22 link relation types: http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-property-and-co= ntext-link-relations-00

Description: 

- Th= is specification defines link relation types that may be used to exp= ress the relationships between a resource and associated properties = or between a resource and it's context.
- The =22property=22 and =22context=22 link relations are intentiona= lly generic, and they can be used with multiple media types in a wid= e variety of use cases
- The =22property=22 Link Rel= ation Type: When included in a response, the =22property=22 link rel= ation identifies a target resource that represents a property of the cont= ext resource.
- The =22context=22 Link Relation Type: When included in a= response, the =22context=22 link relation identifies a target resource t= hat represents a context document of which the context resource is a memb= er.

Could you please review=3F<= /div>
Thanks in advance=21

Best regard= s,
ioseb
-- 
Ioseb Dzmanashvili
AzRy LLC
Software Architect
=238, Chachava str.
Tbil= isi, 0159, Georgia
Mobile: +(995) 99753388

=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F= =5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F= =5F=5F=5F
apps-discuss mailing list
ap= ps-discuss=40ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/apps-discuss<= br>
=20 =20 =20 =20


=20 =20 =20 =20 =20

--51a1f955_5577f8e1_1b1-- From darrel.miller@gmail.com Sun May 26 08:52:25 2013 Return-Path: X-Original-To: link-relations@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: link-relations@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7721C21F8ADF for ; Sun, 26 May 2013 08:52:25 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, NO_RELAYS=-0.001] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 0pcY8N6pkFx8 for ; Sun, 26 May 2013 08:52:24 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-ie0-x231.google.com (mail-ie0-x231.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4001:c03::231]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8541A21F8808 for ; Sun, 26 May 2013 08:52:24 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mail-ie0-f177.google.com with SMTP id 9so15661349iec.8 for ; Sun, 26 May 2013 08:52:24 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:reply-to:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id :subject:from:to:cc:content-type; bh=1T3oYkcdQyW4OzQ6peYAyP1ZaP3hzqU0FjRheewR918=; b=taDKhkBarsoWWYkjE6xa/gRM+IlcjLNuB3B3m8n2jiA+GhDw71hWPCXct5YGmQ43mh 9vY6YJ3b++ZMfQHhQHrGjEAHPANJjMoL2Jy3f2vxc1cYYbRrCcewMtwpvxpuSr1lx1n+ Fmo7Z1pK7swnpL4MgblGWVhftF4gEeDLBPH6YeuxwPvYnhVa/Vsy7it9FjqlW9DSgV7K kZTCLvGixusg4aG88WfZiIll7EMyT8whfLqpO8VUchu3bJTjevg7VSIoeoc9z59h4Hg4 Lbt6kVp6e1gM8tkvrJkZ+sRiSrCS7qI/6O6IihTEEKvatlE+2llKvHzO4a/TY4XVkQ1R DbSA== MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.42.168.198 with SMTP id x6mr16014525icy.45.1369583544066; Sun, 26 May 2013 08:52:24 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.43.6.138 with HTTP; Sun, 26 May 2013 08:52:23 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: References: Date: Sun, 26 May 2013 11:52:23 -0400 Message-ID: Subject: Re: NEW RELATION: property and context From: Darrel Miller To: Ioseb Dzmanashvili Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=90e6ba6e8a20a26fe004dda104e0 Cc: "link-relations@ietf.org" X-BeenThere: link-relations@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list Reply-To: darrel@tavis.ca List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 26 May 2013 15:52:25 -0000 --90e6ba6e8a20a26fe004dda104e0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Hi Ioseb, My concern about introducing the link relation type "property" is that you would be encouraging the creation of very finely grained resources. If some resource has a set of related properties, I would rather see a single link to that set of properties than a set of property links. At that point either a rel like "collection", as Mike suggests, or "describedby" would seem sufficient. Is the desire to create individual links for properties to facilitate updating those properties? Darrel On Sun, May 26, 2013 at 7:24 AM, Ioseb Dzmanashvili < ioseb.dzmanashvili@gmail.com> wrote: > Dear All, > > I've submitted new draft for the "property" and "context" link relation > types: > http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-property-and-context-link-relations-00 > > Description: > > - This specification defines link relation types that may be used to > express the relationships between a resource and associated properties or > between a resource and it's context. > - The "property" and "context" link relations are intentionally generic, > and they can be used with multiple media types in a wide variety of use > cases > - The "property" Link Relation Type: When included in a response, the > "property" link relation identifies a target resource that represents a > property of the context resource. > - The "context" Link Relation Type: When included in a response, the > "context" link relation identifies a target resource that represents a > context document of which the context resource is a member. > > Could you please review? > Thanks in advance! > > Best regards, > ioseb > -- > Ioseb Dzmanashvili > AzRy LLC > Software Architect > #8, Chachava str. > Tbilisi, 0159, Georgia > Mobile: +(995) 99753388 > github.com/ioseb > twitter.com/iosebi > > _______________________________________________ > link-relations mailing list > link-relations@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/link-relations > > --90e6ba6e8a20a26fe004dda104e0 Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Hi Ioseb,
=A0
My concern about in= troducing=A0the link relation type "property" is that you would b= e encouraging the creation of very finely grained resources.=A0 If some res= ource has a set of related properties, I would rather see a single link to = that set of properties than a set of property links.=A0 At that point eithe= r a rel like "collection", as Mike suggests, or "describedby= " would seem sufficient.
=A0
Is the desire to create individual links for properties = to facilitate updating those properties?
=A0
Darrel
=A0


On Sun, May 26, 2013 at 7:24 AM, Ioseb Dzmanashvili <<= a href=3D"mailto:ioseb.dzmanashvili@gmail.com" target=3D"_blank">ioseb.dzma= nashvili@gmail.com> wrote:
Dear All,

I've submitted new draft for th= e "property" and "context" link relation types: http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-property-and-context-l= ink-relations-00

Description:=A0

- This specifi= cation defines link relation types that may be used to express the relation= ships between a resource and associated properties or between a resource an= d it's context.
- The "property" and "context" link relations are = intentionally generic, and they can be used with multiple media types in a = wide variety of use cases
- The "property" Link Relatio= n Type: When included in a response, the "property" link relation= identifies a target resource that represents a property of the context res= ource.
- The "context" Link Relation Type: When included in a respo= nse, the "context" link relation identifies a target resource tha= t represents a context document of which the context resource is a member.<= /div>

Could you please review?
Thanks in advance!

Best regards,
ioseb
--=A0
Ioseb Dzmanashvili
AzRy LLC
Software Architect
#8, Chachava str.
Tbilisi, 0159, Georgia
Mobile: +(995) 99753388
twitter.com/iosebi<= /a>

_______________________________________________<= br> link-relations mailing list
link-relations@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/link-relations


--90e6ba6e8a20a26fe004dda104e0-- From ioseb.dzmanashvili@gmail.com Sun May 26 09:18:00 2013 Return-Path: X-Original-To: link-relations@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: link-relations@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5A41521F8D90 for ; Sun, 26 May 2013 09:18:00 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: 0.377 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.377 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, MIME_QP_LONG_LINE=1.396, RCVD_IN_BL_SPAMCOP_NET=1.96, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1, RCVD_IN_SORBS_WEB=0.619] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id uR80m2DpWkPO for ; Sun, 26 May 2013 09:17:56 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-lb0-f182.google.com (mail-lb0-f182.google.com [209.85.217.182]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4CD7021F8ADF for ; Sun, 26 May 2013 09:17:54 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mail-lb0-f182.google.com with SMTP id z5so5956733lbh.41 for ; Sun, 26 May 2013 09:17:53 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=references:mime-version:in-reply-to:content-type :content-transfer-encoding:message-id:cc:x-mailer:from:subject:date :to; bh=BO61LVeq+NF2RyUEbNfpt55UH/7X0YbghSVOcP3JMRE=; b=CdQZDd7Q2GUxdZ9+9GlMQXwNIHX7RbPVg2IceHPsetYK6PyA+jCNZ3P1VzTM4Hbd8O 7VHqgQWQFLNqdj2QnFqTgKnoZINBkCU3PB8uY12F0tmP3my1HDYCg65zpMmbDN0p7fxx EjxJOewBvG2rPaWHS46Lr4dzR6F6dGRLzQP73gvKfwjkr6T1TLp9pYbKiuJVlaZzviCz k3Fezu763eKKAQvVchkibQkBQt95U7F/iB5OAjm7YbMmSmLHfZo4K6rk1YVfObLhtL2C xY4C3AEVQ1tI8k8MG7hrv40DCjoD7IzutMicV3qEZf5Qn0ukWIOArb78TKwBj8EgUC/i LPGQ== X-Received: by 10.112.169.72 with SMTP id ac8mr12469610lbc.115.1369585073002; Sun, 26 May 2013 09:17:53 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [10.198.132.31] ([81.95.167.13]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPSA id e9sm9052910lbj.3.2013.05.26.09.17.41 for (version=TLSv1 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA bits=128/128); Sun, 26 May 2013 09:17:52 -0700 (PDT) References: Mime-Version: 1.0 (1.0) In-Reply-To: Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=Apple-Mail-49A7F0ED-17E1-4245-A5F5-B515B433AD2E Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-Id: <5289AF00-A443-4FAD-BFA5-D62E0D2FE0BC@gmail.com> X-Mailer: iPhone Mail (10B329) From: Ioseb Dzmanashvili Subject: Re: NEW RELATION: property and context Date: Sun, 26 May 2013 20:17:34 +0400 To: "darrel@tavis.ca" Cc: "link-relations@ietf.org" X-BeenThere: link-relations@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 26 May 2013 16:18:00 -0000 --Apple-Mail-49A7F0ED-17E1-4245-A5F5-B515B433AD2E Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Hi Darrel, Thanks for response! > My concern about introducing the link > relation type "property" is that y= ou=20 > would be encouraging the creation of > very finely grained resources. Well, i do not think it would encourage anyone to create finely grained reso= urces. This rel i believe is useful for specific cases. At least i believe i= t must be possible to create coarse grained resources when necessary. > Is the desire to create individual links for properties to facilitate upda= ting those properties? Yes, this is one of the reasons i used this rel in several apps - to allow s= electively retrieve and modify properties. Cheers, ioseb Sent from my iPhone On May 26, 2013, at 7:52 PM, Darrel Miller wrote: > Hi Ioseb, > =20 > My concern about introducing the link relation type "property" is that you= would be encouraging the creation of very finely grained resources. If som= e resource has a set of related properties, I would rather see a single link= to that set of properties than a set of property links. At that point eith= er a rel like "collection", as Mike suggests, or "describedby" would seem su= fficient. > =20 > Is the desire to create individual links for properties to facilitate upda= ting those properties? > =20 > Darrel > =20 >=20 >=20 > On Sun, May 26, 2013 at 7:24 AM, Ioseb Dzmanashvili wrote: >> Dear All, >>=20 >> I've submitted new draft for the "property" and "context" link relation t= ypes: http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-property-and-context-link-relations-0= 0 >>=20 >> Description:=20 >>=20 >> - This specification defines link relation types that may be used to expr= ess the relationships between a resource and associated properties or betwee= n a resource and it's context. >> - The "property" and "context" link relations are intentionally generic, a= nd they can be used with multiple media types in a wide variety of use cases= >> - The "property" Link Relation Type: When included in a response, the "pr= operty" link relation identifies a target resource that represents a propert= y of the context resource. >> - The "context" Link Relation Type: When included in a response, the "con= text" link relation identifies a target resource that represents a context d= ocument of which the context resource is a member. >>=20 >> Could you please review? >> Thanks in advance! >>=20 >> Best regards, >> ioseb >> --=20 >> Ioseb Dzmanashvili >> AzRy LLC >> Software Architect >> #8, Chachava str. >> Tbilisi, 0159, Georgia >> Mobile: +(995) 99753388 >> github.com/ioseb >> twitter.com/iosebi >>=20 >> _______________________________________________ >> link-relations mailing list >> link-relations@ietf.org >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/link-relations >=20 --Apple-Mail-49A7F0ED-17E1-4245-A5F5-B515B433AD2E Content-Type: text/html; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Hi Darrel,

Thanks for response!

> My concern a= bout introducing the link > relation type "property" is that you&nbs= p;
> would be encouraging the creation of &= gt; very finely grained resources.

Well, i do not think it wou= ld encourage anyone to create finely grained resources. This rel i believe i= s useful for specific cases. At least i believe it must be possible to creat= e coarse grained resources when necessary.

>&nbs= p;Is the desire to create individual links for properties to facilitate u= pdating those properties?

Yes, t= his is one of the reasons i used this rel in several apps - to allow selecti= vely retrieve and modify properties.

Cheers,
ioseb

Sent from my iPhone

On May 26, 2013, at 7:52 PM, Darrel Miller= <darrel.miller@gmail.com&= gt; wrote:

Hi Ioseb,
 
My co= ncern about introducing the link relation type "property" is that you w= ould be encouraging the creation of very finely grained resources.  If s= ome resource has a set of related properties, I would rather see a single li= nk to that set of properties than a set of property links.  At that poi= nt either a rel like "collection", as Mike suggests, or "describedby" would s= eem sufficient.
 
Is the desire to create individual links for propertie= s to facilitate updating those properties?
 
Darrel=
 


On Sun, May 26, 2013 at 7:24 AM, Ioseb Dzmanashvili <ioseb.dzmana= shvili@gmail.com> wrote:
Dear All,

I've submitted new draft for the "pr= operty" and "context" link relation types: http://= tools.ietf.org/html/draft-property-and-context-link-relations-00

Description: 

- This speci= fication defines link relation types that may be used to express the relatio= nships between a resource and associated properties or between a resource an= d it's context.
- The "property" and "context" link relations are intentionally generic= , and they can be used with multiple media types in a wide variety of use ca= ses
- The "property" Link Relation Type: When included in a respon= se, the "property" link relation identifies a target resource that represent= s a property of the context resource.
- The "context" Link Relation Type: When included in a response, the "c= ontext" link relation identifies a target resource that represents a context= document of which the context resource is a member.

Could you please review?
Thanks in advance!

Best regards,
ioseb
-- 

= --Apple-Mail-49A7F0ED-17E1-4245-A5F5-B515B433AD2E-- From markus.lanthaler@gmx.net Sun May 26 14:59:59 2013 Return-Path: X-Original-To: link-relations@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: link-relations@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 769B021F8A6B for ; Sun, 26 May 2013 14:59:59 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: 0.043 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.043 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, MSGID_MULTIPLE_AT=1.449, SARE_RECV_VIRTUACOMBR=1.193] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id M0GA9wQNZW-Z for ; Sun, 26 May 2013 14:59:54 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mout.gmx.net (mout.gmx.net [212.227.15.18]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 512D921F88AC for ; Sun, 26 May 2013 14:59:54 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mailout-de.gmx.net ([10.1.76.31]) by mrigmx.server.lan (mrigmx001) with ESMTP (Nemesis) id 0McCWP-1UzDIs1Kvn-00JcmW for ; Sun, 26 May 2013 23:59:53 +0200 Received: (qmail invoked by alias); 26 May 2013 21:59:52 -0000 Received: from c935b69f.virtua.com.br (EHLO Vostro3500) [201.53.182.159] by mail.gmx.net (mp031) with SMTP; 26 May 2013 23:59:52 +0200 X-Authenticated: #419883 X-Provags-ID: V01U2FsdGVkX1+v46pAl2mvEx9zI3ywCkctj9DAWPckhHTFOUun6i ceZTcM2LMY/utP From: "Markus Lanthaler" To: "'Ioseb Dzmanashvili'" References: <5289AF00-A443-4FAD-BFA5-D62E0D2FE0BC@gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <5289AF00-A443-4FAD-BFA5-D62E0D2FE0BC@gmail.com> Subject: RE: NEW RELATION: property and context Date: Sun, 26 May 2013 18:59:49 -0300 Message-ID: <009201ce5a5c$5b591960$120b4c20$@lanthaler@gmx.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Mailer: Microsoft Office Outlook 12.0 Thread-index: Ac5aLJjccG0/i1XHQHGI6DNwy2SUcQALtfGA Content-Language: de X-Y-GMX-Trusted: 0 Cc: apps-discuss@ietf.org, link-relations@ietf.org X-BeenThere: link-relations@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 26 May 2013 21:59:59 -0000 Ioseb, > I've submitted new draft for the "property" and "context" link > relation types:=20 > = http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-property-and-context-link-relations-00 I have a hard time understanding what your are trying to achieve. Just as Jan mentioned in another thread, the name of the link rels = implies to me that you are kind of reinventing RDF. JSON-LD [1], e.g., = also has the notion of a context and allows JSON documents to be linked = to JSON-LD contexts - although using a full URL as link rel instead of a = token. On Sunday, May 26, 2013 8:22 AM, Ioseb Dzmanashvili wrote: > > Is the desire to create individual links for properties to > > facilitate updating those properties? > > Yes, this is one of the reasons i used this rel in several > apps - to allow selectively retrieve and modify properties. How do you know which link to follow in your apps? Do you do that based = on the title attribute? Cheers, Markus [1] http://www.w3.org/TR/json-ld/ -- Markus Lanthaler @markuslanthaler From ioseb.dzmanashvili@gmail.com Mon May 27 00:28:20 2013 Return-Path: X-Original-To: link-relations@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: link-relations@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0087C21F9195; Mon, 27 May 2013 00:28:20 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -3.598 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.598 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id BcxxcFK2gXCM; Mon, 27 May 2013 00:28:15 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-ee0-f52.google.com (mail-ee0-f52.google.com [74.125.83.52]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id EC27D21F8619; Mon, 27 May 2013 00:28:14 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mail-ee0-f52.google.com with SMTP id c13so3538508eek.25 for ; Mon, 27 May 2013 00:28:14 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=date:from:to:cc:message-id:in-reply-to:references:subject:x-mailer :mime-version:content-type; bh=Qaa90gPnA/RgvlcxZcE09fGTpsYU6WeYZ0oI7Cb6uVE=; b=NlsfBbXaD4eeByQimJ/Ynx1clpvnGFyVhxyLlEkNORauD9909/bUUhNudeqAOrp+06 5xdBvL1tAe/sAnrTofhflozW47HpB2cquA8F94fYvct9JiiVri6RYDpv4it8RvdMnZr8 k9ipaI2g/yLkmTh/iiaBaGmrgD1WpLz/epNJmxx7znRcSy5u2MA6IiwYl3+dcnxrxZ2W 8YxinG1/AUEYPy8uXrLIGIsprt8++ulbWls0SUqsEEJRceW6jY8zCaYp0uAXbPZyQEyx i5ZASfOCaG4IQdWbtzbHdL3U4RIRt01ZNM5z10a1CN1lNDpDsLd+SXd1vXNZzBBfpNAO 6/pw== X-Received: by 10.14.194.130 with SMTP id m2mr8853278een.96.1369639694127; Mon, 27 May 2013 00:28:14 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [10.131.33.114] ([213.131.60.234]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPSA id t9sm39755539eeo.11.2013.05.27.00.28.12 for (version=TLSv1 cipher=RC4-SHA bits=128/128); Mon, 27 May 2013 00:28:13 -0700 (PDT) Date: Mon, 27 May 2013 11:28:11 +0400 From: Ioseb Dzmanashvili To: Markus Lanthaler Message-ID: In-Reply-To: <51a285da.48ac0e0a.7995.ffffdc06SMTPIN_ADDED_BROKEN@mx.google.com> References: <5289AF00-A443-4FAD-BFA5-D62E0D2FE0BC@gmail.com> <51a285da.48ac0e0a.7995.ffffdc06SMTPIN_ADDED_BROKEN@mx.google.com> Subject: Re: NEW RELATION: property and context X-Mailer: sparrow 1.6.4 (build 1178) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="51a30b0b_1d4ed43b_1b1" Cc: apps-discuss@ietf.org, link-relations@ietf.org X-BeenThere: link-relations@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 27 May 2013 07:28:20 -0000 --51a30b0b_1d4ed43b_1b1 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline Hi Markus, > I have a hard time understanding what your are trying to achieve. > Just as Jan mentioned in another thread, the name of the link rels implies to me that you are kind of reinventing RDF. JSON-LD [1], e.g., also has the notion of a context and allows JSON documents to be linked to JSON-LD contexts - although using a full URL as link rel instead of a token. My RDF knowledge is rudimentary, but what i can say for sure the "context" link relation and "@context" from JSON-LD are different things. Here is what JSON-LD[1] documentation says: "The secret lies in the @context, which instructs Linked Data-aware processors on how to interpret the JSON object." which is not the case for the "context" link relation... it's much simpler and must be used to indicate that a resource is a member of another resource and only in cases when we do not have collection/item relationships. For example if i share resource URI which is a member of another resource i can use the "context" link rel to inform processing agent that shared resource is a member of another resource. > How do you know which link to follow in your apps? Do you do that based on the title attribute? No, title attribute is only used for user interfaces i do not think anyone uses it for other purposes. In my apps i only use rel attribute values to decide which link to follow. [1]. http://json-ld.org/ Cheers, isoeb On Monday, May 27, 2013 at 1:59 AM, Markus Lanthaler wrote: > Ioseb, > > > I've submitted new draft for the "property" and "context" link > > relation types: > > http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-property-and-context-link-relations-00 > > > > > I have a hard time understanding what your are trying to achieve. > > Just as Jan mentioned in another thread, the name of the link rels implies to me that you are kind of reinventing RDF. JSON-LD [1], e.g., also has the notion of a context and allows JSON documents to be linked to JSON-LD contexts - although using a full URL as link rel instead of a token. > > > On Sunday, May 26, 2013 8:22 AM, Ioseb Dzmanashvili wrote: > > > Is the desire to create individual links for properties to > > > facilitate updating those properties? > > > > > > > > > Yes, this is one of the reasons i used this rel in several > > apps - to allow selectively retrieve and modify properties. > > > > > How do you know which link to follow in your apps? Do you do that based on the title attribute? > > > Cheers, > Markus > > > [1] http://www.w3.org/TR/json-ld/ > > > -- > Markus Lanthaler > @markuslanthaler > > --51a30b0b_1d4ed43b_1b1 Content-Type: text/html; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Disposition: inline
Hi Markus,

> I have= a hard time understanding what your are trying to achieve.
>= ; Just as Jan mentioned in another thread, the name of the link rels impl= ies to me that you are kind of reinventing RD=46. JSON-LD =5B1=5D, e.g., = also has the notion of a context and allows JSON documents to be linked t= o JSON-LD contexts - although using a full URL as link rel instead of a t= oken.

My RD=46 knowledge is rudimentary, but wha= t i can say for sure the =22context=22 link relation and =22=40context=22= from JSON-LD are different things. Here is what JSON-LD=5B1=5D documenta= tion says: =22The secret lies in the =40context, which instructs Linked D= ata-aware processors on how to interpret the JSON object.=22 which is not= the case for the =22context=22 link relation... it's much simpler and mu= st be used to indicate that a resource is a member of another resource an= d only in cases when we do not have collection/item relationships. =46or = example if i share resource URI which is a member of another resource i c= an use the =22context=22 link rel to inform processing agent that shared = resource is a member of another resource.

> H= ow do you know which link to follow in your apps=3F Do you do that based = on the title attribute=3F

No, title attribute is= only used for user interfaces i do not think anyone uses it for other pu= rposes. In my apps i only use rel attribute values to decide which link t= o follow.  

=5B1=5D. http://json-ld.org/&nb= sp;

Cheers,
isoeb
=20

On Monday, May 27, 201= 3 at 1:59 AM, Markus Lanthaler wrote:

Ioseb,

I've submitted new draft for the =22pr= operty=22 and =22context=22 link
relation types:

I have a hard = time understanding what your are trying to achieve.

<= div>Just as Jan mentioned in another thread, the name of the link rels im= plies to me that you are kind of reinventing RD=46. JSON-LD =5B1=5D, e.g.= , also has the notion of a context and allows JSON documents to be linked= to JSON-LD contexts - although using a full URL as link rel instead of a= token.


On Sunday, May 26, 2013 8= :22 AM, Ioseb Dzmanashvili wrote:
Is the desire to create individu= al links for properties to
facilitate updating those properties= =3F

Yes, this is one of the r= easons i used this rel in several
apps - to allow selectively r= etrieve and modify properties.

How do you know which link to follow in your apps=3F Do you do that bas= ed on the title attribute=3F


Chee= rs,
Markus




=20 =20 =20 =20 =20

--51a30b0b_1d4ed43b_1b1-- From ioseb.dzmanashvili@gmail.com Mon May 27 01:06:24 2013 Return-Path: X-Original-To: link-relations@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: link-relations@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 165DF21F8CA5; Mon, 27 May 2013 01:06:24 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -3.348 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.348 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.250, BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id WREdCZMpYTQc; Mon, 27 May 2013 01:06:20 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-ee0-f48.google.com (mail-ee0-f48.google.com [74.125.83.48]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 616DE21F8B64; Mon, 27 May 2013 01:06:19 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mail-ee0-f48.google.com with SMTP id b47so3896152eek.35 for ; Mon, 27 May 2013 01:06:18 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=date:from:to:cc:message-id:in-reply-to:references:subject:x-mailer :mime-version:content-type; bh=46mqdrths8Ir4WSS6b+dvJumwAVdkyZi0fp7Bghdl7Q=; b=qTAlPpOkxPHWNe05XmqnCmFJbMXnR49Oei7fc8nMglaZ+4AO7HkLcsBkN9o1c6H0dc iqpL+UcdVHG19WpqMZ4g09TUQRmrn1TMdm4eZRxcRGYRNOK8NYsBXIVWmFa4tz23mhdW Hlt9lG/DPhLa9RrJ+k4Yvb7R+Vf9mCNgvGiJBVBXYwPn01ICfXh/YCYfUSul4jiCn3JR noNybHBLKe0b99KdNmYl3uWfgUnimipozo8Yq181QL31LLKJ7EeRAozSXDrC2AhwlZ/S ZIxdUM+LvPxHZ68RoVou0OIw3UcpFhElP9M1x+WD7FoqSLg75lqwKk7inD6R6CM914RN v3Tw== X-Received: by 10.15.41.200 with SMTP id s48mr8973721eev.91.1369641978289; Mon, 27 May 2013 01:06:18 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [10.131.33.114] ([213.131.60.234]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPSA id s8sm39909010eeo.4.2013.05.27.01.06.16 for (version=TLSv1 cipher=RC4-SHA bits=128/128); Mon, 27 May 2013 01:06:17 -0700 (PDT) Date: Mon, 27 May 2013 12:06:15 +0400 From: Ioseb Dzmanashvili To: janalgermissen1und1@mac.com Message-ID: <3147643D8DBF46A5B87A00E3116A5724@gmail.com> In-Reply-To: References: <4038B5FE76874C54A819A07FE192AEF8@gmail.com> <6E466260-0DDC-4B7F-8FB1-9DAF59BD1BB7@nordsc.com> <2F22027CD7A04FFBA2B5A8442B7927E5@gmail.com> Subject: Re: [apps-discuss] NEW RELATION: property and context X-Mailer: sparrow 1.6.4 (build 1178) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="51a313f7_354fe9f9_1b1" Cc: apps-discuss@ietf.org, "=?utf-8?Q?link-relations=40ietf.org?=" X-BeenThere: link-relations@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 27 May 2013 08:06:24 -0000 --51a313f7_354fe9f9_1b1 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline Jan, > Let's try a different way: What is a 'property'? It's a data member. For example "title" or "summary" of an article. ioseb On Monday, May 27, 2013 at 11:46 AM, janalgermissen1und1@mac.com wrote: > > On 27.05.2013, at 09:36, Ioseb Dzmanashvili wrote: > > > > > > What is the difference exactly between a property and a link? > > > > Sorry, i do not get this question? > > Let's try a different way: > > What is a 'property'? > > Jan > > > > > > Cheers, > > ioseb > > On Sunday, May 26, 2013 at 9:00 PM, Jan Algermissen wrote: > > > > > Ioseb, > > > > > > On 26.05.2013, at 13:21, Ioseb Dzmanashvili wrote: > > > > > > > Dear All, > > > > > > > > I've submitted new draft for the "property" and "context" link relation types: http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-property-and-context-link-relations-00 > > > > > > It feels a bit like reinventing RDF. > > > > > > What is the difference exactly between a property and a link? > > > > > > Jan > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Description: > > > > > > > > - This specification defines link relation types that may be used to express the relationships between a resource and associated properties or between a resource and it's context. > > > > - The "property" and "context" link relations are intentionally generic, and they can be used with multiple media types in a wide variety of use cases > > > > - The "property" Link Relation Type: When included in a response, the "property" link relation identifies a target resource that represents a property of the context resource. > > > > - The "context" Link Relation Type: When included in a response, the "context" link relation identifies a target resource that represents a context document of which the context resource is a member. > > > > > > > > Could you please review? > > > > Thanks in advance! > > > > > > > > Best regards, > > > > ioseb > > > > -- > > > > Ioseb Dzmanashvili > > > > AzRy LLC > > > > Software Architect > > > > #8, Chachava str. > > > > Tbilisi, 0159, Georgia > > > > Mobile: +(995) 99753388 > > > > github.com/ioseb (http://github.com/ioseb) > > > > twitter.com/iosebi (http://twitter.com/iosebi) > > > > _______________________________________________ > > > > apps-discuss mailing list > > > > apps-discuss@ietf.org (mailto:apps-discuss@ietf.org) > > > > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/apps-discuss > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > --51a313f7_354fe9f9_1b1 Content-Type: text/html; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Disposition: inline
Jan,

> Let's try a diffe= rent way: What is a 'property'=3F

It's a data me= mber. =46or example =22title=22 or =22summary=22 of an article.

ioseb 
=20

On Monday, May 27, 201= 3 at 11:46 AM, janalgermissen1und1=40mac.com wrote:



<= /div>

What is the difference exactly between a property and a l= ink=3F

Sorry, i do not get this que= stion=3F

Let's try a differe= nt way:

What is a 'property'=3F

Jan



Cheers,
ioseb
On Sunda= y, May 26, 2013 at 9:00 PM, Jan Algermissen wrote:

Ioseb,

On = 26.05.2013, at 13:21, Ioseb Dzmanashvili <ioseb.dzmanashvili=40gmail.com> wrote:

Dear All,

I've submitted new draft for the =22property=22 and = =22context=22 link relation types: http://tools.ietf.org/h= tml/draft-property-and-context-link-relations-00

It feels a bit like reinventing RD=46.
=
What is the difference exactly between a property and a li= nk=3F

Jan



Description:

- This specification defines link relation types that ma= y be used to express the relationships between a resource and associated = properties or between a resource and it's context.
- The =22pro= perty=22 and =22context=22 link relations are intentionally generic, and = they can be used with multiple media types in a wide variety of use cases=
- The =22property=22 Link Relation Type: When included in a re= sponse, the =22property=22 link relation identifies a target resource tha= t represents a property of the context resource.
- The =22conte= xt=22 Link Relation Type: When included in a response, the =22context=22 = link relation identifies a target resource that represents a context docu= ment of which the context resource is a member.

= Could you please review=3F
Thanks in advance=21

<= /div>
Best regards,
ioseb
--
Ioseb Dzma= nashvili
AzRy LLC
Software Architect
=238, = Chachava str.
Tbilisi, 0159, Georgia
Mobile: +(995) 9= 9753388
=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F= =5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F= =5F=5F=5F
apps-discuss mailing list
=20 =20 =20 =20 =20

--51a313f7_354fe9f9_1b1-- From dret@berkeley.edu Mon May 27 07:20:13 2013 Return-Path: X-Original-To: link-relations@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: link-relations@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2C29321F92EB; Mon, 27 May 2013 07:20:13 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: 1.211 X-Spam-Level: * X-Spam-Status: No, score=1.211 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_40=-0.185, MIME_QP_LONG_LINE=1.396] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id XMSlpczSvkNY; Mon, 27 May 2013 07:20:07 -0700 (PDT) Received: from gong.birdhouse.org (gong.birdhouse.org [207.58.180.215]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5BA1221F8BBC; Mon, 27 May 2013 07:20:07 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mobile-166-137-187-240.mycingular.net ([166.137.187.240]:40760 helo=[10.112.201.71]) by gong.birdhouse.org with esmtpsa (TLSv1:AES128-SHA:128) (Exim 4.80.1) (envelope-from ) id 1UgyHN-0004eU-Ur; Mon, 27 May 2013 07:20:06 -0700 References: <5289AF00-A443-4FAD-BFA5-D62E0D2FE0BC@gmail.com> <51a285da.48ac0e0a.7995.ffffdc06SMTPIN_ADDED_BROKEN@mx.google.com> In-Reply-To: Mime-Version: 1.0 (1.0) Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Message-Id: <95E83124-0A6D-45FE-AB63-5768F2369717@berkeley.edu> X-Mailer: iPhone Mail (10B350) From: Erik Wilde Subject: Re: NEW RELATION: property and context Date: Mon, 27 May 2013 07:20:01 -0700 To: "link-relations@ietf.org" , "apps-discuss@ietf.org" X-AntiAbuse: This header was added to track abuse, please include it with any abuse report X-AntiAbuse: Primary Hostname - gong.birdhouse.org X-AntiAbuse: Original Domain - ietf.org X-AntiAbuse: Originator/Caller UID/GID - [47 12] / [47 12] X-AntiAbuse: Sender Address Domain - berkeley.edu X-Get-Message-Sender-Via: gong.birdhouse.org: authenticated_id: birdhouse@dret.net X-Source: X-Source-Args: X-Source-Dir: X-BeenThere: link-relations@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 27 May 2013 14:20:13 -0000 hello ioseb. On May 27, 2013, at 0:28, Ioseb Dzmanashvili w= rote: > No, title attribute is only used for user interfaces i do not think anyone= uses it for other purposes. In my apps i only use rel attribute values to d= ecide which link to follow. i guess what markus wanted to know is how clients decide which link to follo= w for a specific property, if you have more than one. there must be some "pr= operty identifier" somewhere, so that clients can distinguish, right? i was w= ondering about the same thing. thanks and cheers, dret.= From ioseb.dzmanashvili@gmail.com Mon May 27 08:09:36 2013 Return-Path: X-Original-To: link-relations@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: link-relations@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C6B5C21F92F5; Mon, 27 May 2013 08:09:36 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.931 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.931 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.333, BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 3xgmt0hoAmfG; Mon, 27 May 2013 08:09:35 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-ea0-x232.google.com (mail-ea0-x232.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4013:c01::232]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3461121F91C4; Mon, 27 May 2013 08:09:34 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mail-ea0-f178.google.com with SMTP id q16so4133545ead.9 for ; Mon, 27 May 2013 08:09:34 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=date:from:to:cc:message-id:in-reply-to:references:subject:x-mailer :mime-version:content-type; bh=z5n1VNWoEiw6yNCyIbqJ1y3+D1T08XQtLZlIW43XyKs=; b=OZ8Y1vNV1m+yUSrJzzzP2K/4a+0MCm3oj/KKqvK47PSPzYcLHg80zW/mwfu+78+flw Er1iRxghrwWG1xYW1RlrBiq8ARISV63XGVIJR59CFwwEyPn031keFDIOTae+Ks68ON3Q 8Xm2Ce8KYWtVKa/TCp3vqKuvmYSbfybd9fwIvM/fUYU4FkHcsuZtCDW08VWSwcgS7GzD 2rR7VmP/DaN2F1aakQN2WEC6t8qR6SwclY1f5fgH770TFfqumwgX+7ywC0+WF0MlvYwf Oah5DYxY4fo49eQ4EvCeBj1wsVJIJqVPFu1Ml5E8Qe+LyoV8jG+Kkmi1WFkiyxrDQwcy khGg== X-Received: by 10.14.38.71 with SMTP id z47mr10461144eea.138.1369667374219; Mon, 27 May 2013 08:09:34 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [10.131.33.114] ([213.131.60.234]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPSA id s8sm42167853eeo.4.2013.05.27.08.09.31 for (version=TLSv1 cipher=RC4-SHA bits=128/128); Mon, 27 May 2013 08:09:32 -0700 (PDT) Date: Mon, 27 May 2013 19:09:30 +0400 From: Ioseb Dzmanashvili To: Erik Wilde Message-ID: In-Reply-To: <95E83124-0A6D-45FE-AB63-5768F2369717@berkeley.edu> References: <5289AF00-A443-4FAD-BFA5-D62E0D2FE0BC@gmail.com> <51a285da.48ac0e0a.7995.ffffdc06SMTPIN_ADDED_BROKEN@mx.google.com> <95E83124-0A6D-45FE-AB63-5768F2369717@berkeley.edu> Subject: Re: NEW RELATION: property and context X-Mailer: sparrow 1.6.4 (build 1178) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="51a3772a_579be4f1_1b1" Cc: "=?utf-8?Q?apps-discuss=40ietf.org?=" , "=?utf-8?Q?link-relations=40ietf.org?=" X-BeenThere: link-relations@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 27 May 2013 15:09:37 -0000 --51a3772a_579be4f1_1b1 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline Hi Erik, > i guess what markus wanted to know is how clients decide which link to follow for a specific property, if you have more than one. there must be some "property identifier" somewhere, so that clients can distinguish, right? i was wondering about the same thing. Thanks for clarification! When i use this relation type in GUI apps the "property" rel is enough to distinguish property links from other links. But in addition i usually use application specific profiles describing link relation extensions for particular property types. For example: Link: ; rel="property http://rels.service.org/properties#title"; title="Human friendly text here..." cheers, ioseb On Monday, May 27, 2013 at 6:20 PM, Erik Wilde wrote: > hello ioseb. > > On May 27, 2013, at 0:28, Ioseb Dzmanashvili wrote: > > No, title attribute is only used for user interfaces i do not think anyone uses it for other purposes. In my apps i only use rel attribute values to decide which link to follow. > > > i guess what markus wanted to know is how clients decide which link to follow for a specific property, if you have more than one. there must be some "property identifier" somewhere, so that clients can distinguish, right? i was wondering about the same thing. > > thanks and cheers, > > dret. --51a3772a_579be4f1_1b1 Content-Type: text/html; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Disposition: inline
Hi Erik,

> i guess = what markus wanted to know is how clients decide which link to follow for= a specific property, if you have more than one. there must be some =22pr= operty identifier=22 somewhere, so that clients can distinguish, right=3F= i was wondering about the same thing.

Thanks fo= r clarification=21 When i use this relation type in GUI apps the =22prope= rty=22 rel is enough to distinguish property links from other links. But = in addition i usually use application specific profiles describing link r= elation extensions for particular property types. =46or example:

Link: </book;title>; rel=3D=22property http://rels= .service.org/properties=23title=22; title=3D=22Human friendly text here..= .=22

cheers,
ioseb
=20

On Monday, May 27, 201= 3 at 6:20 PM, Erik Wilde wrote:

hello ioseb.

On May 27, 2013, at 0:28, Ioseb Dzmanashvili <ioseb.dzmanashvili=40gmail.com>= ; wrote:
No, title attribute is o= nly used for user interfaces i do not think anyone uses it for other purp= oses. In my apps i only use rel attribute values to decide which link to = follow.

i guess what markus wanted = to know is how clients decide which link to follow for a specific propert= y, if you have more than one. there must be some =22property identifier=22= somewhere, so that clients can distinguish, right=3F i was wondering abo= ut the same thing.

thanks and cheers,
=
dret.
=20 =20 =20 =20
=20

--51a3772a_579be4f1_1b1-- From duerst@it.aoyama.ac.jp Mon May 27 17:11:29 2013 Return-Path: X-Original-To: link-relations@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: link-relations@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D997A21F8F43; Mon, 27 May 2013 17:11:29 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -103.79 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-103.79 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, HELO_EQ_JP=1.244, HOST_EQ_JP=1.265, MIME_8BIT_HEADER=0.3, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id NtO378l-obkM; Mon, 27 May 2013 17:11:18 -0700 (PDT) Received: from scintmta02.scbb.aoyama.ac.jp (scintmta02.scbb.aoyama.ac.jp [133.2.253.34]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A22E021F87E0; Mon, 27 May 2013 17:11:16 -0700 (PDT) Received: from scmse02.scbb.aoyama.ac.jp ([133.2.253.231]) by scintmta02.scbb.aoyama.ac.jp (secret/secret) with SMTP id r4S0B3ub013492; Tue, 28 May 2013 09:11:03 +0900 Received: from (unknown [133.2.206.134]) by scmse02.scbb.aoyama.ac.jp with smtp id 7e9c_5c03_159b5e88_c72b_11e2_b4a8_001e6722eec2; Tue, 28 May 2013 09:11:02 +0900 Received: from [IPv6:::1] (unknown [133.2.210.1]) by itmail2.it.aoyama.ac.jp (Postfix) with ESMTP id BE01DBF521; Tue, 28 May 2013 09:10:05 +0900 (JST) Message-ID: <51A3F60D.1030507@it.aoyama.ac.jp> Date: Tue, 28 May 2013 09:10:53 +0900 From: =?UTF-8?B?Ik1hcnRpbiBKLiBEw7xyc3Qi?= Organization: Aoyama Gakuin University User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 6.1; en-US; rv:1.9.1.9) Gecko/20100722 Eudora/3.0.4 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Erik Wilde Subject: Re: [apps-discuss] NEW RELATION: property and context References: <5289AF00-A443-4FAD-BFA5-D62E0D2FE0BC@gmail.com> <51a285da.48ac0e0a.7995.ffffdc06SMTPIN_ADDED_BROKEN@mx.google.com> <95E83124-0A6D-45FE-AB63-5768F2369717@berkeley.edu> In-Reply-To: <95E83124-0A6D-45FE-AB63-5768F2369717@berkeley.edu> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: "apps-discuss@ietf.org" , "link-relations@ietf.org" X-BeenThere: link-relations@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 28 May 2013 00:11:30 -0000 On 2013/05/27 23:20, Erik Wilde wrote: > hello ioseb. > > On May 27, 2013, at 0:28, Ioseb Dzmanashvili wrote: >> No, title attribute is only used for user interfaces i do not think anyone uses it for other purposes. In my apps i only use rel attribute values to decide which link to follow. > > i guess what markus wanted to know is how clients decide which link to follow for a specific property, if you have more than one. there must be some "property identifier" somewhere, so that clients can distinguish, right? i was wondering about the same thing. Also, having only a single property at the end of a link will be rare. Usually it's a collection of properties. So I'm wondering why the relation name is not "properties". Regards, Martin. From markus.lanthaler@gmx.net Tue May 28 15:57:42 2013 Return-Path: X-Original-To: link-relations@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: link-relations@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9CC9B21F910D for ; Tue, 28 May 2013 15:57:42 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.15 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.15 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, MSGID_MULTIPLE_AT=1.449] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id XhpEzRCqgMgQ for ; Tue, 28 May 2013 15:57:37 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mout.gmx.net (mout.gmx.net [212.227.15.19]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 719E421F90F1 for ; Tue, 28 May 2013 15:57:34 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mailout-de.gmx.net ([10.1.76.20]) by mrigmx.server.lan (mrigmx001) with ESMTP (Nemesis) id 0MMZTU-1UnUyB1VVe-008NWC for ; Wed, 29 May 2013 00:57:33 +0200 Received: (qmail invoked by alias); 28 May 2013 22:57:33 -0000 Received: from 84-115-182-43.dynamic.surfer.at (EHLO Vostro3500) [84.115.182.43] by mail.gmx.net (mp020) with SMTP; 29 May 2013 00:57:33 +0200 X-Authenticated: #419883 X-Provags-ID: V01U2FsdGVkX18otGAtoOMowNodJAkYVi5GO6iGdULAee1NKExaDM scnGCh6GI3iLVG From: "Markus Lanthaler" To: "'Ioseb Dzmanashvili'" References: <5289AF00-A443-4FAD-BFA5-D62E0D2FE0BC@gmail.com> <51a285da.48ac0e0a.7995.ffffdc06SMTPIN_ADDED_BROKEN@mx.google.com> In-Reply-To: Subject: RE: NEW RELATION: property and context Date: Wed, 29 May 2013 00:57:08 +0200 Message-ID: <000001ce5bf6$c03a4610$40aed230$@lanthaler@gmx.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Mailer: Microsoft Office Outlook 12.0 Thread-Index: Ac5aq7+OUdjHB5AwRc2KieZr+QbfEgA+qCTw Content-Language: de X-Y-GMX-Trusted: 0 Cc: apps-discuss@ietf.org, link-relations@ietf.org X-BeenThere: link-relations@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 28 May 2013 22:57:42 -0000 On Monday, May 27, 2013 9:28 AM, Ioseb Dzmanashvili wrote: > My RDF knowledge is rudimentary, but what i can say for sure the > "context" link relation and "@context" from JSON-LD are different > things. Of course. I just mentioned it because they use exactly the same = terminology and I was not the only one to be confused by this. > Here is what JSON-LD[1] documentation says: "The secret lies > in the @context, which instructs Linked Data-aware processors on how > to interpret the JSON object." which is not the case for the "context" > link relation... it's much simpler and must be used to indicate that a > resource is a member of another resource and only in cases when we do > not have collection/item relationships. Sorry, I don't understand this. It indicates that resource I is a member = of a resource C but only if resource I is not an item of collection C!? = In which case then? Aren't you contradicting yourself? > For example if i share > resource URI which is a member of another resource i can use the > "context" link rel to inform processing agent that shared resource is > a member of another resource. Unfortunately, this doesn't make it any clearer to me. > > How do you know which link to follow in your apps? Do you do that > > based on the title attribute? > > No, title attribute is only used for user interfaces i do not think > anyone uses it for other purposes. In my apps i only use rel attribute > values to decide which link to follow. As Erik already clarified in another thread I'm interested in how your = application is able to select the correct link to follow if you have = multiple links, e.g.: Link: ; rel=3D"property"; title=3D"Property A" Link: ; rel=3D"property"; title=3D"Property B" Link: ; rel=3D"property"; title=3D"Property C" Since there's no other information than the rel and the title (and the = URL) you obviously would have to program against the title. If you need = another rel as you showed in the other thread: > Link: ; rel=3D"property = http://rels.service.org/properties#title"; > title=3D"Human friendly text here..." Then why do you need "property"? Isn't = http://rels.service.org/properties#title all you need then? -- Markus Lanthaler @markuslanthaler From ioseb.dzmanashvili@gmail.com Wed May 29 13:07:39 2013 Return-Path: X-Original-To: link-relations@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: link-relations@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8DF9121F96D4; Wed, 29 May 2013 13:07:39 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.999 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.999 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, J_CHICKENPOX_32=0.6] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id u4rj4NbnyBgQ; Wed, 29 May 2013 13:07:38 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-ea0-x234.google.com (mail-ea0-x234.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4013:c01::234]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4BE4421F96B4; Wed, 29 May 2013 13:07:37 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mail-ea0-f180.google.com with SMTP id g10so5429995eak.25 for ; Wed, 29 May 2013 13:07:36 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=date:from:to:cc:message-id:in-reply-to:references:subject:x-mailer :mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding :content-disposition; bh=18fcZCjiKtCAwc+K8TolKkpIi6mzLEkuqsCCOJV1/HE=; b=M7ypVjGjmCh+S/yyMX2+eKVlg7/TaCoTezq9iXKrQOKb+nZdOhhhVnH14vJiMH/VDo oJZm308/2EAfWWAuFa667ZT8is8ylRWmaOELyFpVWUoDD6HtQLGAi56GSaivhlBIOJc7 qJu1m3WtFBSHToTTsE1Ki4y37qfvIzWjXe0nOSIUave6952PgqCRma+5OShLEBEoESr9 /At7OfRKBg2kceQ5drJw00r4fuK2+cxP+J0SQ67rKDuMaPVrVne5OI79uDpLqJjRnOiR p1XkytnpDlTqWFmup6TsPcg+47ECEouOcltr9tXpqPs9pyO8OSL36beT9AHqOkS+yynC I/UQ== X-Received: by 10.14.213.73 with SMTP id z49mr6024968eeo.94.1369858055946; Wed, 29 May 2013 13:07:35 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [192.168.1.7] ([176.73.174.236]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPSA id t6sm19951927eev.14.2013.05.29.13.07.33 for (version=TLSv1 cipher=RC4-SHA bits=128/128); Wed, 29 May 2013 13:07:34 -0700 (PDT) Date: Thu, 30 May 2013 00:07:34 +0400 From: Ioseb Dzmanashvili To: Markus Lanthaler Message-ID: <87194C5A218E42F9AA9B81339D2C1BC5@gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <51a64b5f.87000e0a.78ef.ffff87a2SMTPIN_ADDED_BROKEN@mx.google.com> References: <4038B5FE76874C54A819A07FE192AEF8@gmail.com> <51a53d34.48b40e0a.70fc.1549SMTPIN_ADDED_BROKEN@mx.google.com> <51a54dfa.086f0e0a.693f.2ff4SMTPIN_ADDED_BROKEN@mx.google.com> <51a64b5f.87000e0a.78ef.ffff87a2SMTPIN_ADDED_BROKEN@mx.google.com> Subject: Re: [apps-discuss] NEW RELATION: property and context X-Mailer: sparrow 1.6.4 (build 1178) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Disposition: inline Cc: IETF Apps Discuss , "=?utf-8?Q?link-relations=40ietf.org?=" X-BeenThere: link-relations@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 29 May 2013 20:07:39 -0000 On Wednesday, May 29, 2013 at 10:39 PM, Markus Lanthaler wrote: > On Wednesday, May 29, 2013 9:35 AM, Ioseb Dzmanashvili wrote: > > Here is the example: > > =20 > > *** REQUEST: =46etch photo *** > > > GET /article/photo HTTP/1.1 > > > Host: service.org (http://service.org) > > =20 > > =20 > > =20 > > *** RESPONSE: Photo representation *** > > < HTTP/1.1 200 OK > > < Content-Type: image/jpeg > > < Content-Length: ... > > < Link: ; rel=3D=22property=22; title=3D=22Prop= erty 1=22, > > < ; rel=3D=22property=22; title=3D=22Property 2= =22, > > < ; rel=3D=22self=22; title=3D=22...=22, > > < ; rel=3D=22context=22 title=3D=22Thousand Leagues Under t= he Sea=22 > > < =20 > > < =5BBINARY DATA HERE=5D > > =20 > > *** REQUEST: =46etch one of the properties *** > > > GET /article/photo;prop1 > > > Host: service.org (http://service.org) > > =20 > =20 > =20 > =20 > This is right at the heart of my first question: How does the client kn= ow to fetch /article/photo;prop1 instead of /article/photo;prop2=3F > =20 > There are only two options here: a) code against the target URL or b) c= ode against the title attribute. Since you said b) is used exclusively fo= r rendering purposes I assume you would code your client against the URL = (or parts thereof) which would go against the fundamental idea of typed l= inks. Both options are wrong. =20 > a) code against the target URL or 1) the =22property=22 link relation is enough to indicate that target res= ource is a property and allow agents to distinguish these links form othe= rs; =20 2) additional semantics can be provided with extension link relations and= there is nothing wrong with it, it doesn't violate anything nor can be c= onsidered as anti pattern. 3) your argument implicitly claims that there exists only M2M interaction= which is also wrong. there are also GUI apps for which it's enough to ju= st know that some of links are properties(identified by the =22property=22= relation) 4) having a general purpose link relation makes it useful and reusable fr= om application to application, it eliminates need to redefine each time w= hat =22property=22 is and is media format agnostic. shared understanding = is important i believe and additional semantics for each specific propert= y is solvable on another level. > b) is used exclusively for rendering purposes I assume you would code y= our client against the URL (or parts thereof) which would go against the = fundamental idea of typed links. very strange assumption. =20 =20 > > *** RESPONSE: property representation *** > > < HTTP/1.1 200 OK > > < Content-Type: text/plain > > < Link: ; rel=3D=22self=22 title=3D=22...=22, > > < ; rel=3D=22context=22; title=3D=22...=22 > > < =20 > > < =5BPROPERTY VALUE HERE=5D > > =20 > > Based on this example, i'm not sure how the =22describes=22 link rela= tion > > can be used instead of the =22context=22 link relation when by defini= tion > > the =22describes=22 relations says that: =22The relationship A 'descr= ibes' B > > asserts that resource A provides a description of resource B. There > > are no constraints on the format or representation of either A or B, > > neither are there any further constraints on either resource.=22=3F I= n > > this particular example =22context=22 indicates resource to which the= > > /article/photo or /article/photo;prop1 resources belong and context > > resources do not provide any description of those members. > =20 > =20 > =20 > Hmm.. I do partly agree for the /article/photo -> /article link but wou= ld argue that /article/photo;prop1 does *describe* /article/photo. Simila= rly it could be argued that /article/photo *isDescribedBy* /article. Are you sure that =22describedby=22 and =22describes=22 relations give en= ough semantics to agents=3F is not it necessary to provide some kind of = description=3F if one describes another how it is described=3F and what = it gives to agent particularly in M2M interaction case=3F do automated ag= ents strangely become smart and happy when they just identify typed links= annotated with those relations=3F > > What i > > want to say here it's a simple relationship between two resources > > without any descriptions etc=E2=80=A6 > =20 > =20 > =20 > So you want to express a relationship without any specific semantics=3F= In that case, why do you need a typed link=3F Can't you just use a untyp= ed one=3F Than how GUI or automated agent will distinguish resources which are prop= erties accessible individually from for example the =22edit=22 or =22edit= -form=22 links=3F or implementations are going to follow some convention = like: if a link doesn't have relation just display it=3F or ignore 'em=3F= or=3F > > Same with the =22collection=22 and =22item=22 relationships, i do not= see(or > > maybe do not understand=3F) how /article and /article/photo resources= > > are collections=3F > =20 > =20 > =20 > If article would be called slideshow or gallery, would you see it then=3F= :-) You could say that an article is a collection of information, some p= rose, some images, maybe some movies etc. but i didn't say =22gallery=22 or =22slideshow=22 in my example. what if = a resource is an ID card which has only one and only one photo of a perso= n=3F do you think that ID card or driving license are collections=3F and = yes i can not say that an article is a collection, not because we can not= say it generally but because what you say is overgeneralisation of thing= s. we can discuss everything as a collection and item but what you say ma= kes me think that =22collection=22, =22item=22, =22describes=22 and =22de= scribedby=22 link relations suddenly solved whole world problems. > > if yes, collections of what=3F generally we can say > > that everything is an item but taking the definition of the =22item=22= > > link relation: =22The target IRI points to a resource that is a membe= r > > of the collection represented by the context IRI.=22 Now if we consid= er > > following example: > > =20 > > < HTTP/1.1 200 OK > > < Content-Type: =E2=80=A6 > > < Content-Length: =E2=80=A6 > > < Link: ; rel=3D=22self=22; title=3D=22=E2=80=A6=22, > > < ; rel=3D=22enclosure=22 title=3D=22=E2=80=A6=22 > > < > > < =5BREST O=46 CONTENT HERE=5D > > =20 > > can we say for /article/photo resource that context IRI represents a > > collection=3F or does the /article resource somehow =22describes=22 t= he > > /article/photo resource=3F or is /article/photo resource is an item > > which belongs to collection=3F > =20 > =20 > =20 > Could be any of those. If the article describe the photo you could use = =22describes=22. If the article is more a collection of information (e.g.= pictures as in a gallery) you could say it is a =22collection=22 and the= photo is an =22item=22. could you please point me to the example how article describes photo=3F i= t would be really helpful for me=21. I believe i know and clearly unders= tand when i can say that an article is a collection, but does it make who= le world a collection=3F again, is not it overgeneralisation and oversimp= lification of things=3F =20 > =20 > =20 > Btw. On mailing lists it is typically considered as a best practice to = write text-only mails. This makes it much easier to quote etc. Could you = please update your client settings to send text-only mails instead of HTM= L formatted mails. Thanks a lot=21 done, thanks for letting me know. =20 > =20 > -- > Markus Lanthaler > =40markuslanthaler cheers, =20 ioseb From markus.lanthaler@gmx.net Fri May 31 16:32:03 2013 Return-Path: X-Original-To: link-relations@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: link-relations@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 53F6321F8F38 for ; Fri, 31 May 2013 16:32:03 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: 1.45 X-Spam-Level: * X-Spam-Status: No, score=1.45 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_50=0.001, MSGID_MULTIPLE_AT=1.449] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id WfUgsODvKCgT for ; Fri, 31 May 2013 16:31:58 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mout.gmx.net (mout.gmx.net [212.227.15.18]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5F56921F8B60 for ; Fri, 31 May 2013 16:31:06 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mailout-de.gmx.net ([10.1.76.2]) by mrigmx.server.lan (mrigmx001) with ESMTP (Nemesis) id 0M94oF-1UYMhZ3Sij-00CPnt for ; Sat, 01 Jun 2013 01:31:04 +0200 Received: (qmail invoked by alias); 31 May 2013 23:31:04 -0000 Received: from 84-115-182-43.dynamic.surfer.at (EHLO Vostro3500) [84.115.182.43] by mail.gmx.net (mp002) with SMTP; 01 Jun 2013 01:31:04 +0200 X-Authenticated: #419883 X-Provags-ID: V01U2FsdGVkX1+80OxM9yO8aF8e0tDv6iPQqWOoF8IsUTWsO30zCI fERiGL8kWoO/uI From: "Markus Lanthaler" To: "'Ioseb Dzmanashvili'" References: <4038B5FE76874C54A819A07FE192AEF8@gmail.com> <51a53d34.48b40e0a.70fc.1549SMTPIN_ADDED_BROKEN@mx.google.com> <51a54dfa.086f0e0a.693f.2ff4SMTPIN_ADDED_BROKEN@mx.google.com> <51a64b5f.87000e0a.78ef.ffff87a2SMTPIN_ADDED_BROKEN@mx.google.com> <87194C5A218E42F9AA9B81339D2C1BC5@gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <87194C5A218E42F9AA9B81339D2C1BC5@gmail.com> Subject: RE: [apps-discuss] NEW RELATION: property and context Date: Sat, 1 Jun 2013 01:30:59 +0200 Message-ID: <024601ce5e56$ea9206c0$bfb61440$@lanthaler@gmx.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Mailer: Microsoft Office Outlook 12.0 Thread-Index: Ac5cqClz0wCu4GdXQIGfoKm6iAefrgBqi6Rw Content-Language: de X-Y-GMX-Trusted: 0 Cc: 'IETF Apps Discuss' , link-relations@ietf.org X-BeenThere: link-relations@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 31 May 2013 23:32:03 -0000 On Wednesday, May 29, 2013 10:08 PM, Ioseb Dzmanashvili wrote: > > This is right at the heart of my first question: How does the client > know to fetch /article/photo;prop1 instead of /article/photo;prop2? > > > > There are only two options here: a) code against the target URL or = b) > > code against the title attribute. Since you said b) is used = exclusively > > for rendering purposes I assume you would code your client against = the > > URL (or parts thereof) which would go against the fundamental idea = of > > typed links. > > Both options are wrong. >=20 > > a) code against the target URL or >=20 > 1) the "property" link relation is enough to indicate that target > resource is a property and allow agents to distinguish these links = form > others; Yes, distinguish from other rels, but not enough to distinguish two = properties as in your example: *** RESPONSE: Photo representation *** HTTP/1.1 200 OK Content-Type: image/jpeg Content-Length: ... Link: ; rel=3D"property"; title=3D"Property 1", ; rel=3D"property"; title=3D"Property 2", > 2) additional semantics can be provided with extension link relations > and there is nothing wrong with it, it doesn't violate anything nor = can > be considered as anti pattern. Right, but the question I ask myself then is why you need the generic = "property" relation then. > 3) your argument implicitly claims that there exists only M2M > interaction which is also wrong. there are also GUI apps for which = it's > enough to just know that some of links are properties(identified by = the > "property" relation) Hmm... it helps you to render just the property links, yes. But then the = user has to choose the right link based on the title attribute. > 4) having a general purpose link relation makes it useful and reusable > from application to application, it eliminates need to redefine each > time what "property" is and is media format agnostic. shared > understanding is important i believe and additional semantics for each > specific property is solvable on another level. Right, but property is so generic that I have problems seeing its value. = This goes a bit in the direction of Jan's question. Would you think the = following would be a reasonable design choice: Link: ; rel=3D"link" This allows your application to render all "link" links but by itself = doesn't add any semantics beyond the ones the Link header already has. [...] > > Hmm.. I do partly agree for the /article/photo -> /article link but > > would argue that /article/photo;prop1 does *describe* = /article/photo. > > Similarly it could be argued that /article/photo *isDescribedBy* > > /article. > > Are you sure that "describedby" and "describes" relations give enough > semantics to agents? is not it necessary to provide some kind of > description? Yes, this alongside the media type of the referenced/referencing = resource provides enough semantics for an agent to do something useful = with it. > if one describes another how it is described? The media type defines that. One obvious answer is e.g. RDF. > and what it > gives to agent particularly in M2M interaction case? do automated > agents strangely become smart and happy when they just identify typed > links annotated with those relations? No, but they do know that they can follow the link to get a description = which they (may) understand. You could argue that the same is true for = properties/contexts but that would mean that you, e.g., would have to = define media types for all properties so that clients can express what = they understand. Just returning a string as text/plain for a title = property is definitely not enough to enable M2M communication without = having to rely on out-of-band information. > > So you want to express a relationship without any specific = semantics? > > In that case, why do you need a typed link? Can't you just use a > > untyped one? > > Than how GUI or automated agent will distinguish resources which are > properties accessible individually from for example the "edit" or > "edit-form" links? or implementations are going to follow some > convention like: if a link doesn't have relation just display it? or > ignore 'em? or? Displaying just links without relation would be a reasonable design = choice IMO because they do not provide enough semantics to be handled = automatically. Thus, the choice has to be made by the (human) user which = interprets the link's label, i.e., the title attribute. > > If article would be called slideshow or gallery, would you see it > > then? :-) You could say that an article is a collection of > > information, some prose, some images, maybe some movies etc. > > but i didn't say "gallery" or "slideshow" in my example. what if a > resource is an ID card which has only one and only one photo of a > person? do you think that ID card or driving license are collections? First of all, I don't understand why such a link would have to be = exposed on the HTTP layer. If you really want to, I think in such a = specific case it makes much more sense to use a URL as link relation. = You probably don't even have to invent it yourself as other people did = already and you profit in terms of interoperability and code reusability = if you just reuse it. The FOAF Vocabulary e.g., defines a "depiction" = URL which you could use. See: http://xmlns.com/foaf/spec/#term_depiction > and yes i can not say that an article is a collection, not because we > can not say it generally but because what you say is = overgeneralisation > of things. we can discuss everything as a collection and item but what > you say makes me think that "collection", "item", "describes" and > "describedby" link relations suddenly solved whole world problems. :-) You are putting words in my mouth. I tried to show that that = "property" has extremely weak semantics - IMHO too weak. [...] > > Could be any of those. If the article describe the photo you could > > use "describes". If the article is more a collection of information > > (e.g. pictures as in a gallery) you could say it is a "collection" = and > > the photo is an "item". > > could you please point me to the example how article describes photo? > it would be really helpful for me! http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vitruvian_Man *describes* = http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/2/22/Da_Vinci_Vitruve_Luc_V= iatour.jpg > I believe i know and clearly > understand when i can say that an article is a collection, but does it > make whole world a collection? again, is not it overgeneralisation and > oversimplification of things? No, of course not. But every link is a property of a resource and thus, = again IMO, "property" has too weak semantics for a standardized link = relation. > > Btw. On mailing lists it is typically considered as a best practice > > to write text-only mails. This makes it much easier to quote etc. = Could > > you please update your client settings to send text-only mails = instead > > of HTML formatted mails. Thanks a lot! > > done, thanks for letting me know. Thanks a lot! This definitely makes replying much easier -- Markus Lanthaler @markuslanthaler