Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.
 

Why is there no "item" link relation registered at IANA?

Expand Messages
  • Jakob Strauch
    I just wondered why there is no item relation (ore something similar) registered at [1] with the semantics of this is an item of this collection resource .
    Message 1 of 7 , Oct 2, 2011
      I just wondered why there is no "item" relation (ore something similar) registered at [1] with the semantics of "this is an item of this collection resource". There is one e.g. for the first item (start). I´ve seen some examples around the web - recently [2] - using a proprietary "item" relation.

      I would like to register this relation, but i could not see any link to the registration form/procedure. Furthermore, i don´t know if a registration would be accepted without "item" being a part of some RFC (like all the other relation types in the registry...)

      The use case for this is: you could return a collection of links instead of embedded resources for a "collection resource".

      [1] http://www.iana.org/assignments/link-relations/link-relations.xml
      [2] http://stateless.co/hal_specification.html#examples
    • mike amundsen
      Jakob: I have an I-D in process now: http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-amundsen-item-and-collection-link-relations-02 Feel free to make comments/suggestions
      Message 2 of 7 , Oct 2, 2011
        Jakob:

        I have an I-D in process now:
        http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-amundsen-item-and-collection-link-relations-02

        Feel free to make comments/suggestions here:
        http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/link-relations/current/msg00270.html

        FWIW - this I-D stalled while I was away on holiday in September. I
        plan on pressing forward ASAP. Any and all comments will be
        appreaciated.

        mca
        http://amundsen.com/blog/
        http://twitter.com@mamund
        http://mamund.com/foaf.rdf#me





        On Sun, Oct 2, 2011 at 09:45, Jakob Strauch <jakob.strauch@...> wrote:
        > I just wondered why there is no "item" relation (ore something similar) registered at [1] with the semantics of "this is an item of this collection resource". There is one e.g. for the first item (start). I´ve seen some examples around the web - recently [2] - using a proprietary "item" relation.
        >
        > I would like to register this relation, but i could not see any link to the registration form/procedure. Furthermore, i don´t know if a registration would be accepted without "item" being a part of some RFC (like all the other relation types in the registry...)
        >
        > The use case for this is: you could return a collection of links instead of embedded resources for a "collection resource".
        >
        > [1] http://www.iana.org/assignments/link-relations/link-relations.xml
        > [2] http://stateless.co/hal_specification.html#examples
        >
        >
        >
        > ------------------------------------
        >
        > Yahoo! Groups Links
        >
        >
        >
        >
      • Julian Reschke
        ... The registry page links to RFC 5988, and that defines the registry procedure; see . Best regards, Julian
        Message 3 of 7 , Oct 4, 2011
          On 2011-10-02 15:45, Jakob Strauch wrote:
          > ...
          > I would like to register this relation, but i could not see any link to
          > the registration form/procedure. Furthermore, i don´t know if a
          > registration would be accepted without "item" being a part of some RFC
          > (like all the other relation types in the registry...)
          > ...

          The registry page links to RFC 5988, and that defines the registry
          procedure; see <https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc5988#section-6.2.1>.

          Best regards, Julian
        • bryan_w_taylor
          Just use self within the context of a child item:
          Message 4 of 7 , Oct 7, 2011
            Just use "self" within the context of a child item:

            <things>
            <thing id="1" name="thing1">
            <atom:link rel="self" href="http://example.com/things/1"/>
            </thing>
            <thing id="2" name="thing2">
            <atom:link rel="self" href="http://example.com/things/2"/>
            </thing>
            </things>

            --- In rest-discuss@yahoogroups.com, "Jakob Strauch" <jakob.strauch@...> wrote:
            >
            > I just wondered why there is no "item" relation (ore something similar) registered at [1] with the semantics of "this is an item of this collection resource".
          • Jakob Strauch
            As far as i understand link relations, they refer to the context of the resource URI. From [1]: A link can be viewed as a statement of the form {context IRI}
            Message 5 of 7 , Oct 8, 2011
              As far as i understand link relations, they refer to the context of
              the resource URI. From [1]:

              A link can be viewed as a statement of the form "{context IRI} has a
              {relation type} resource at {target IRI}, which has {target
              attributes}."

              In your example, does "self" not refer to the resource´s context (the collection)?

              [1] http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-nottingham-http-link-header-10#page-4

              --- In rest-discuss@yahoogroups.com, "bryan_w_taylor" <bryan_w_taylor@...> wrote:
              >
              >
              >
              > Just use "self" within the context of a child item:
              >
              > <things>
              > <thing id="1" name="thing1">
              > <atom:link rel="self" href="http://example.com/things/1"/>
              > </thing>
              > <thing id="2" name="thing2">
              > <atom:link rel="self" href="http://example.com/things/2"/>
              > </thing>
              > </things>
              >
              > --- In rest-discuss@yahoogroups.com, "Jakob Strauch" <jakob.strauch@> wrote:
              > >
              > > I just wondered why there is no "item" relation (ore something similar) registered at [1] with the semantics of "this is an item of this collection resource".
              >
            • Daniel "Oscar" Schulte
              If I remember correctly, the Context IRI is definined by the Media Type. Atom (RFC 4287) defines the containing element as context ( The value self
              Message 6 of 7 , Oct 10, 2011
                If I remember correctly, the Context IRI is definined by the Media Type. Atom (RFC 4287) defines the containing element as context (" The value "self" signifies that the IRI in the value of the href attribute identifies a resource equivalent to the containing element."). However, Web Linking (RFC 5988) defines the IRI of the requested resource as default Context IRI but allows to override it by an anchor parameter.

                Am 08.10.2011 15:32, schrieb Jakob Strauch:
                 

                As far as i understand link relations, they refer to the context of
                the resource URI. From [1]:

                A link can be viewed as a statement of the form "{context IRI} has a
                {relation type} resource at {target IRI}, which has {target
                attributes}."

                In your example, does "self" not refer to the resource´s context (the collection)?

                [1] http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-nottingham-http-link-header-10#page-4

                --- In rest-discuss@yahoogroups.com, "bryan_w_taylor" <bryan_w_taylor@...> wrote:
                >
                >
                >
                > Just use "self" within the context of a child item:
                >
                > <things>
                > <thing id="1" name="thing1">
                > <atom:link rel="self" href="http://example.com/things/1"/>
                > </thing>
                > <thing id="2" name="thing2">
                > <atom:link rel="self" href="http://example.com/things/2"/>
                > </thing>
                > </things>
                >
                > --- In rest-discuss@yahoogroups.com, "Jakob Strauch" <jakob.strauch@> wrote:
                > >
                > > I just wondered why there is no "item" relation (ore something similar) registered at [1] with the semantics of "this is an item of this collection resource".
                >


              • Mike Kelly
                Right, this is also a primary purpose of elements in hal representations On Mon, Oct 10, 2011 at 12:36 PM, Daniel Oscar Schulte
                Message 7 of 7 , Oct 10, 2011
                  Right, this is also a primary purpose of <resource> elements in hal representations


                  On Mon, Oct 10, 2011 at 12:36 PM, Daniel "Oscar" Schulte <mail@...> wrote:


                  If I remember correctly, the Context IRI is definined by the Media Type. Atom (RFC 4287) defines the containing element as context (" The value "self" signifies that the IRI in the value of the href attribute identifies a resource equivalent to the containing element."). However, Web Linking (RFC 5988) defines the IRI of the requested resource as default Context IRI but allows to override it by an anchor parameter.

                  Am 08.10.2011 15:32, schrieb Jakob Strauch:
                   

                  As far as i understand link relations, they refer to the context of
                  the resource URI. From [1]:

                  A link can be viewed as a statement of the form "{context IRI} has a
                  {relation type} resource at {target IRI}, which has {target
                  attributes}."

                  In your example, does "self" not refer to the resource´s context (the collection)?

                  [1] http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-nottingham-http-link-header-10#page-4

                  --- In rest-discuss@yahoogroups.com, "bryan_w_taylor" <bryan_w_taylor@...> wrote:
                  >
                  >
                  >
                  > Just use "self" within the context of a child item:
                  >
                  > <things>
                  > <thing id="1" name="thing1">
                  > <atom:link rel="self" href="http://example.com/things/1"/>
                  > </thing>
                  > <thing id="2" name="thing2">
                  > <atom:link rel="self" href="http://example.com/things/2"/>
                  > </thing>
                  > </things>
                  >
                  > --- In rest-discuss@yahoogroups.com, "Jakob Strauch" <jakob.strauch@> wrote:
                  > >
                  > > I just wondered why there is no "item" relation (ore something similar) registered at [1] with the semantics of "this is an item of this collection resource".
                  >





                Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.