I've been reading this thread whilst writing up some blog posts on the subject and was rereading the specs for "Content-Disposition", and it the spec mentions:
disposition := "Content-Disposition" ":"
disposition-type := "inline"
; values are not case-sensitive
Looking at the extension-token specs elsewhere it would look like it'd be acceptable for us rest-nazi's to adopt something like:
Content-Disposition: inline; concept=customer
(or even rel=customer if we wanted to keep some form of consistent naming ). This at least covers declaring the disposition / concept we're returning, and it looks like the SIP protocol proposed the Accept-Disposition header  and from cursory reading around this looks like this would be a valid (existing) method for defining these concept.s
Am I wrong?
"Great artists are extremely selfish and arrogant things" — Steven Wilson, Porcupine Tree
On Fri, Dec 30, 2011 at 10:46 PM, Paul Cohen <pacoispaco@...>
Maybe the term "conceptual type" was unfortunate. My point in the
discussion was that it may be of interest to talk about the concepts
and information a service is meant to provide in order to then be able
to reason about what media types to use or invent for a given service.