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.
> 
>  -- Cornelia Davis
> ...

"parents	up

While “up” is described as a URI that refers to “a” parent document in a 
hierarchy, singular vs. plural is the only deviation from what we need 
for “parents”.  Since a media type is not defined with a link relation, 
I say we use it.  We can post a discussion to the atom mailing lists to 
see what that community thinks."

As discussed yesterday in the telco: if there are multiple parents, the 
right way to model this is to have links to each parent.

Having a single link that points to a container which in turn contains 
the parents adds a level of indirection that IMHO does not work for this 
link relation, in particular if we use a generic format like Atom.

I do understand the issue mentioned by Al -- computing the set of 
parents may be expensive, so you don't want to do it all the time, and 
have to note that this is one of these issues you don't have with WebDAV 
(because in WebDAV clients need to tell the server which live properties 
~~ link relations they are interested in :-).


BR, Julian

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