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

Using # in link relations to distinct links of the same relationship type?

Expand Messages
  • Jakob Strauch
    Several times i came to the question, wheter to specify a relation with some kind of index to distinct links of the same relationship type. examples: GET
    Message 1 of 5 , Nov 29, 2011
      Several times i came to the question, wheter to specify a relation with some kind of index to distinct links of the same relationship type.

      examples:

      GET /products/canon
      <category name="canon" ...>
      <link href="..." rel="http://example.com/item#1" .../>
      <link href="..." rel="http://example.com/item#2" .../>
      <link href="..." rel="http://example.com/item#3" .../>
      </category>


      With this, one could give same relation-types different weights, an order/index or different nuances.

      Is it worth thinking about? Would it break something? What are the arguments ´bout this topic around here? What are alternatives?
    • mike amundsen
      using HTML as an example... when servers i write want to pass the identity of an item in a response representation, i use @id (unique) or @name (non-unique)
      Message 2 of 5 , Nov 29, 2011
        using HTML as an example...

        when servers i write want to pass the identity of an item in a response representation, i use @id (unique) or @name (non-unique) attributes

        the client apps i write use the @rel & @class attributes (both non-unique multi-valued fields) as a semantic identifier (i.e. what this _means_).

        i follow the same general rule for any custom designs (XML, JSON, etc.) that i create.

        mixing identity and meaning into the same attribute is, IMO, not a good idea. esp. in the long-term.

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




        On Tue, Nov 29, 2011 at 17:54, Jakob Strauch <jakob.strauch@...> wrote:
        Several times i came to the question, wheter to specify a relation with some kind of index to distinct links of the same relationship type.

        examples:

        GET /products/canon
        <category name="canon" ...>
          <link href="..." rel="http://example.com/item#1" .../>
          <link href="..." rel="http://example.com/item#2" .../>
          <link href="..." rel="http://example.com/item#3" .../>
        </category>


        With this, one could give same relation-types different weights, an order/index or different nuances.

        Is it worth thinking about? Would it break something? What are the arguments ´bout this topic around here? What are alternatives?





        ------------------------------------

        Yahoo! Groups Links

        <*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
           http://groups.yahoo.com/group/rest-discuss/

        <*> Your email settings:
           Individual Email | Traditional

        <*> To change settings online go to:
           http://groups.yahoo.com/group/rest-discuss/join
           (Yahoo! ID required)

        <*> To change settings via email:
           rest-discuss-digest@yahoogroups.com
           rest-discuss-fullfeatured@yahoogroups.com

        <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
           rest-discuss-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com

        <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
           http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/


      • Jakob Strauch
        Well, i think i meant something different: I want to express a relation ship like the fifth element , no matter which entity it links to. Orders of a
        Message 3 of 5 , Nov 30, 2011
          Well, i think i meant something different: I want to express a relation ship like "the fifth element", no matter which entity it links to.

          Orders of a customer:

          <link href="/orders/2011/january/123" id="123" rel="http://example/order#1"/>
          <link href="/orders/2011/june/987" id="987" rel="http://example/order#2"/>

          There are already some relationship types for a small subset of this kind of relations: "first" and "last".

          I ran into this questions while enhancing Darell Miller´s HAL serializer with the latest WCF Web API bits...



          --- In rest-discuss@yahoogroups.com, mike amundsen <mamund@...> wrote:
          >
          > using HTML as an example...
          >
          > when servers i write want to pass the identity of an item in a response
          > representation, i use @id (unique) or @name (non-unique) attributes
          >
          > the client apps i write use the @rel & @class attributes (both non-unique
          > multi-valued fields) as a semantic identifier (i.e. what this _means_).
          >
          > i follow the same general rule for any custom designs (XML, JSON, etc.)
          > that i create.
          >
          > mixing identity and meaning into the same attribute is, IMO, not a good
          > idea. esp. in the long-term.
          >
          > mca
          > http://amundsen.com/blog/
          > http://twitter.com@mamund
          > http://mamund.com/foaf.rdf#me
          >
          >
          >
          >
          > On Tue, Nov 29, 2011 at 17:54, Jakob Strauch <jakob.strauch@...> wrote:
          >
          > > Several times i came to the question, wheter to specify a relation with
          > > some kind of index to distinct links of the same relationship type.
          > >
          > > examples:
          > >
          > > GET /products/canon
          > > <category name="canon" ...>
          > > <link href="..." rel="http://example.com/item#1" .../>
          > > <link href="..." rel="http://example.com/item#2" .../>
          > > <link href="..." rel="http://example.com/item#3" .../>
          > > </category>
          > >
          > >
          > > With this, one could give same relation-types different weights, an
          > > order/index or different nuances.
          > >
          > > Is it worth thinking about? Would it break something? What are the
          > > arguments ´bout this topic around here? What are alternatives?
          > >
          > >
          > >
          > >
          > >
          > > ------------------------------------
          > >
          > > Yahoo! Groups Links
          > >
          > >
          > >
          > >
          >
        • mike amundsen
          i would not use the @rel value as a sort key, either. mca http://amundsen.com/blog/ http://twitter.com@mamund http://mamund.com/foaf.rdf#me ... i would not use
          Message 4 of 5 , Dec 1, 2011
            i would not use the @rel value as a sort key, either.

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




            On Thu, Dec 1, 2011 at 02:10, Jakob Strauch <jakob.strauch@...> wrote:
            Well, i think i meant something different: I want to express a relation ship like "the fifth element", no matter which entity it links to.

            Orders of a customer:

            <link href="/orders/2011/january/123" id="123" rel="http://example/order#1"/>
            <link href="/orders/2011/june/987" id="987" rel="http://example/order#2"/>

            There are already some relationship types for a small subset of this kind of relations: "first" and "last".

            I ran into this questions while enhancing Darell Miller´s HAL serializer with the latest WCF Web API bits...



            --- In rest-discuss@yahoogroups.com, mike amundsen <mamund@...> wrote:
            >
            > using HTML as an example...
            >
            > when servers i write want to pass the identity of an item in a response
            > representation, i use @id (unique) or @name (non-unique) attributes
            >
            > the client apps i write use the @rel & @class attributes (both non-unique
            > multi-valued fields) as a semantic identifier (i.e. what this _means_).
            >
            > i follow the same general rule for any custom designs (XML, JSON, etc.)
            > that i create.
            >
            > mixing identity and meaning into the same attribute is, IMO, not a good
            > idea. esp. in the long-term.
            >
            > mca
            > http://amundsen.com/blog/
            > http://twitter.com@mamund
            > http://mamund.com/foaf.rdf#me
            >
            >
            >
            >
            > On Tue, Nov 29, 2011 at 17:54, Jakob Strauch <jakob.strauch@...> wrote:
            >
            > > Several times i came to the question, wheter to specify a relation with
            > > some kind of index to distinct links of the same relationship type.
            > >
            > > examples:
            > >
            > > GET /products/canon
            > > <category name="canon" ...>
            > >   <link href="..." rel="http://example.com/item#1" .../>
            > >   <link href="..." rel="http://example.com/item#2" .../>
            > >   <link href="..." rel="http://example.com/item#3" .../>
            > > </category>
            > >
            > >
            > > With this, one could give same relation-types different weights, an
            > > order/index or different nuances.
            > >
            > > Is it worth thinking about? Would it break something? What are the
            > > arguments ´bout this topic around here? What are alternatives?
            > >
            > >
            > >
            > >
            > >
            > > ------------------------------------
            > >
            > > Yahoo! Groups Links
            > >
            > >
            > >
            > >
            >




            ------------------------------------

            Yahoo! Groups Links

            <*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
               http://groups.yahoo.com/group/rest-discuss/

            <*> Your email settings:
               Individual Email | Traditional

            <*> To change settings online go to:
               http://groups.yahoo.com/group/rest-discuss/join
               (Yahoo! ID required)

            <*> To change settings via email:
               rest-discuss-digest@yahoogroups.com
               rest-discuss-fullfeatured@yahoogroups.com

            <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
               rest-discuss-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com

            <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
               http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/


          • Mike Kelly
            the xml variant for HAL has @name for handling this already. It s meant to be used as a secondary key to @rel. Mike - the problem with using @id (unique in the
            Message 5 of 5 , Dec 1, 2011
              the xml variant for HAL has @name for handling this already. It's meant to be used as a secondary key to @rel.

              Mike - the problem with using @id (unique in the whole document) is that it undermines any other intended control data on the link such as @rel - since it's likely your clients will overlook it completely.

              Cheers,
              Mike

              On Thu, Dec 1, 2011 at 9:51 AM, mike amundsen <mamund@...> wrote:


              i would not use the @rel value as a sort key, either.
              On Thu, Dec 1, 2011 at 02:10, Jakob Strauch <jakob.strauch@...> wrote:
              Well, i think i meant something different: I want to express a relation ship like "the fifth element", no matter which entity it links to.

              Orders of a customer:

              <link href="/orders/2011/january/123" id="123" rel="http://example/order#1"/>
              <link href="/orders/2011/june/987" id="987" rel="http://example/order#2"/>

              There are already some relationship types for a small subset of this kind of relations: "first" and "last".

              I ran into this questions while enhancing Darell Miller´s HAL serializer with the latest WCF Web API bits...



              --- In rest-discuss@yahoogroups.com, mike amundsen <mamund@...> wrote:
              >
              > using HTML as an example...
              >
              > when servers i write want to pass the identity of an item in a response
              > representation, i use @id (unique) or @name (non-unique) attributes
              >
              > the client apps i write use the @rel & @class attributes (both non-unique
              > multi-valued fields) as a semantic identifier (i.e. what this _means_).
              >
              > i follow the same general rule for any custom designs (XML, JSON, etc.)
              > that i create.
              >
              > mixing identity and meaning into the same attribute is, IMO, not a good
              > idea. esp. in the long-term.
              >
              > mca
              > http://amundsen.com/blog/
              > http://twitter.com@mamund
              > http://mamund.com/foaf.rdf#me
              >
              >
              >
              >
              > On Tue, Nov 29, 2011 at 17:54, Jakob Strauch <jakob.strauch@...> wrote:
              >
              > > Several times i came to the question, wheter to specify a relation with
              > > some kind of index to distinct links of the same relationship type.
              > >
              > > examples:
              > >
              > > GET /products/canon
              > > <category name="canon" ...>
              > >   <link href="..." rel="http://example.com/item#1" .../>
              > >   <link href="..." rel="http://example.com/item#2" .../>
              > >   <link href="..." rel="http://example.com/item#3" .../>
              > > </category>
              > >
              > >
              > > With this, one could give same relation-types different weights, an
              > > order/index or different nuances.
              > >
              > > Is it worth thinking about? Would it break something? What are the
              > > arguments ´bout this topic around here? What are alternatives?
              > >
              > >
              > >
              > >
              > >
              > > ------------------------------------
              > >
              > > Yahoo! Groups Links
              > >
              > >
              > >
              > >
              >




              ------------------------------------

              Yahoo! Groups Links

              <*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
                 http://groups.yahoo.com/group/rest-discuss/

              <*> Your email settings:
                 Individual Email | Traditional

              <*> To change settings online go to:
                 http://groups.yahoo.com/group/rest-discuss/join
                 (Yahoo! ID required)

              <*> To change settings via email:
                 rest-discuss-digest@yahoogroups.com
                 rest-discuss-fullfeatured@yahoogroups.com

              <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
                 rest-discuss-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com

              <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
                 http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/





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