[Fwd: Comments on CMIS link relations]

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

FYI:

-------- Original Message --------
From: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>
To: cmis-comment@lists.oasis-open.org
Subject: Comments on CMIS link relations
Date: Fri, 1 May 2009 14:57:56 +1000
Cc: Atom-Syntax Syntax <atom-syntax@imc.org>


[ CC:ing atom-syntax FYI ]

CMIS 
<http://www.oasis-open.org/committees/download.php/32171/Draft%2061.zip
> specifies a large number of new link relations for use in Atom. A  
few comments and questions follow:

1. Each one of the link relations specifies a type of document that it
references (with "Mime/Type", although I note that the proper term is
media type, and the values given are prose descriptions, not media
types). Is the intent here to limit these relations to those types? If
so, this is conflating the job of a link relation with a media type.
Link relation types should not be specific to any single format.

2. Some of the proposed registrations seem to overlap with existing
relation types (e.g., "parents" whereas "up" has already been
registered; "repository" where "service" would probably do.).

3. Other proposed registrations seem to be very specific to your use
case (e.g., "streams", "allowableactions"). These cases may be better
served by using extension relations (i.e., URIs).

4. Of the remaining ones, it does seem like there are some useful
things to register (e.g., "child", "latestversion"), but the language
shouldn't be specific to your use case; they need to be generic.

5. In case you're not aware, there's a proposal circulating to revise
the link relation registration process, as well as provide a framework
for them; see 
<https://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/draft-nottingham-http-link-header/
>.

Cheers,

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