Re: [cmis] Groups - Link relations naming proposal (Link relationsproposal.doc) uploaded

[Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@greenbytes.de>]

davis_cornelia@emc.com wrote:
 > Hello all.  I've completed the inventory of current link relations 
and have
 > made an initial proposal on how each of the link relations should be 
named.
 >  I believe the next step is to form a working group to discuss.
 > ...

Hi Cornelia,

thanks for the work on the proposal. So far I have only one 
comment/question:

"repository    service

While I realize that a repository corresponds to a, I cannot find 
anything in the current CMIS spec that addresses how the workspace 
element will be addressed with a URI.  Please correct me if I am wrong 
but near as I can tell there is no standard for fragment identifiers for 
XML (there is a Sept 03 W3C Working Group Note on the subject).  If the 
plan was to have resources for each of the workspaces independently (and 
URIs for them), and the media type for those URIs be service documents 
containing only that single workgroup, this will work just as well with 
the “service” name as with the “repository” name.  I say we go with what 
is already defined."

Yes.

If there is a one-to-one relation between repository and service, then 
it's not clear why the existing link relation "service" can't be used.

Furthermore, if we use link relations, then it also needs to be clear 
that we have a URI for the link target. (Note that that URI doesn't 
necessarily need to be resolvable.)

Finally, fragment identifiers into XML indeed aren't specified in 
absence of a DTD, or, more recently, unless the format uses xml:id. In 
the specific case of linking into an AtomPub service document, neither 
is the case.

BR, Julian


-- 
<green/>bytes GmbH, Hafenweg 16, D-48155 Münster, Germany
Amtsgericht Münster: HRB5782