Hi Al,
Responses inline.
On 06/05/2009, at 1:09 AM, Al Brown wrote:
Mark,
Thanks for taking the time for reviewing. You raise some interesting
points. I'd like to address them individually:
1. The spec has a section on IANA registration that defines the link
relations and general concept they represent. The spec then uses
those link relations and binds them (for the CMIS specification) to
specific media types. The links to be registered are not specific to
a media type but rather used to model concepts not yet in the link
draft you specified.
Ah, good.
2. Both up and service are not defined in that draft your provided
so I am not sure I understand them completely. As long as up is
defined to include the up 'document' in 1 hierarchy and if more than
1 hierarchy then a resource describing the collection of up
documents then that works. The 1..n aspect is important. Also, in
CMIS, repository maps to a workspace in a service a document, so
somehow that association needs to be kept.
Sorry about that; both were missed in my last draft, and will be in
the next one. They're already in the registry;
http://www.iana.org/assignments/link-relations/link-relations.xhtml
3. Agreed. For those that are specific, either URI format or a
general purpose link relation that fits will be chosen. On the two
you mentioned, we have an issue to remove stream. On allowable
actions, it is used to represent a document that describes the
actions that can be taken on resource. That concept does not seem to
be modeled yet. Would 'actions' be better term for this?
I'm not sure. Does the document describe the specific semantics that
are allowed (potentially in an extensible way), or is it more focused
on conveying permissions?
Cheers,
--
Mark Nottingham http://www.mnot.net/
