Re: Use of describedby link relation

Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net> Wed, 21 November 2012 02:26 UTC

Return-Path: <mnot@mnot.net>
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 AA52D21F8754 for <link-relations@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 20 Nov 2012 18:26:09 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -104.413
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-104.413 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-1.814, BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 8D5O7JAjTWPY for <link-relations@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 20 Nov 2012 18:26:09 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mxout-08.mxes.net (mxout-08.mxes.net [216.86.168.183]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E9AC421F86D2 for <link-relations@ietf.org>; Tue, 20 Nov 2012 18:26:08 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [192.168.1.75] (unknown [118.209.244.234]) (using TLSv1 with cipher AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.mxes.net (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 34CE7509B5; Tue, 20 Nov 2012 21:26:06 -0500 (EST)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1252"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 6.2 \(1499\))
Subject: Re: Use of describedby link relation
From: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>
In-Reply-To: <010001cdc330$e75a1720$b60e4560$@lanthaler@gmx.net>
Date: Wed, 21 Nov 2012 13:26:06 +1100
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <1D5073BD-578C-4F7E-B8DA-0A5EB7D15FAD@mnot.net>
References: <010001cdc330$e75a1720$b60e4560$@lanthaler@gmx.net>
To: Markus Lanthaler <markus.lanthaler@gmx.net>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1499)
Cc: link-relations@ietf.org
X-BeenThere: link-relations@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: <link-relations.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/link-relations>, <mailto:link-relations-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/link-relations>
List-Post: <mailto:link-relations@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:link-relations-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/link-relations>, <mailto:link-relations-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 21 Nov 2012 02:26:09 -0000

First of all, link relations are explicitly NOT linked to any particular media type -- so the argument that describedBy is exclusive to POWDER -- assuming that means a media type -- is misfounded.

Indeed, POWDER itself says:

> This is a generic relationship type that does not of itself imply that the link points to a POWDER document — that is done by the specific Media type.

The definition of describedBy is:

>   Refers to a resource providing information about the link's context.


That's it. This is quite vague; some relations are. 

Personally, it if were me, I'd want a relation type that is more concrete, but if describedBy works for you, go for it, I'd say.

Cheers,



On 15/11/2012, at 11:58 PM, Markus Lanthaler <markus.lanthaler@gmx.net> wrote:

> Hi,
> 
> I have a question regarding the use of the describedby link relation.
> 
> In JSON-LD [1] we have something that we call a "context". Its purpose is
> mainly to map terms to IRIs to allow their unambiguous identification. In a
> JSON-LD document that context is stored in a "@context" property like so:
> 
> {
>  "@context": {
>    "name": "http://example.com/name"
>  },
>  "name": "Markus Lanthaler"
> }
> 
> To allow developers to build on existing infrastructure, i.e., keep their
> JSON documents unchanged but nevertheless allow them to link to such a
> "context" we use a HTTP link header with the relation type "descibedby" [2]:
> 
> Link: <http://json-ld.org/contexts/person.jsonld>; rel="describedby";
> type="application/ld+json"
> 
> We now got some complaints [3] that we are abusing "describedby" since a) we
> are not linking to POWDER documents, and b) the way we use it doesn't match
> the semantics of that link relation.
> 
> 
> I would appreciate your opinion on that. Do you think we should mint a new
> link relation or is it a sensible decision to use "describedby" for this!?
> 
> 
> 
> Thank you very much,
> Markus
> 
> 
> [1] http://json-ld.org/
> [2]
> http://json-ld.org/spec/latest/json-ld-syntax/#referencing-contexts-from-jso
> n-documents
> [3] https://github.com/json-ld/json-ld.org/issues/197
> 
> 
> 
> --
> Markus Lanthaler
> @markuslanthaler
> 
> _______________________________________________
> link-relations mailing list
> link-relations@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/link-relations

--
Mark Nottingham   http://www.mnot.net/