Edit comment LC-2111 for Protocol for Web Description Resources (POWDER) Working Group

Quick access to LC-2111 LC-2113 LC-2114 LC-2115 LC-2117 LC-2118 LC-2120 LC-2121 LC-2122 LC-2123 LC-2124 LC-2127

Comment LC-2111

Comment Shortname:

Commenter: Phil Archer <parcher@fosi.org> on behalf of Mark Nottingham

Message-id:

Section of the document concerned:

[Free text description]Document as a wholeProtocol for Web Description Resources (POWDER): Descripti... Abstract Status of this document Table of Contents 1 Introduction POWDER documents 1.1 Operational and Formal Semantics 1.2 Namespaces and Terminology. Prefix Namespace wdr http://www.w3.org/2007/05/powder#... White space is any of U+0009, U+000A, U+000D and U+0020. A s... 2 POWDER Structure and Semantics 2.1 Operational Semantics On 14th December 2007, the entity described at http://author... Example 2-1: Generic Example of a POWDER Document Containin... Line 3 the dates and times given SHOULD The description itself. A DR MUST contain at least one descr... Example 2-2: Generic Example of a POWDER Document Containin... 2.2 Formal Semantics: POWDER-S Example 2-3: Generic example of a POWDER-S Document Contain... The wdrs:issuedby property (line 11) is a sub-property of bo... For the avoidance of doubt: it is the POWDER document that i... 2.3 Exclusive Description Resources Example 2-4: A POWDER Document Containing Conflicting Descr... Example 2-5: A POWDER Document Containing Disjoint Descript... Example 2-6: A POWDER Document Containing an Ordered List o... N.B. IRI sets within a POWDER document do not inherit the va... Example 2-7: The POWDER-S Document Derived From Example 2-6... <owl:Class> <owl:intersectionOf rdf:parseType="Collect... 2.4 DRs with Multiple IRI Sets Example 2-8: A DR for which the scope is the union of two I... 2.5 Direct Resource Description Example 2-9: A POWDER Document With Descriptors That Can Be... 2.6 Pre-Defined Descriptors Example 2-10: Example of a Pre-Defined Descriptors Element... Example 2-11: POWDER-S Version of Example 2-10 powder1.rdf... Although abouthosts can provide a useful processing hint in... 2.7 Free Text Tags, Comments, Labels and "See Also" Example 2-12: Generic Example of a DR Containing a Tagset [... Example 2-13: Example of a DR Containing a Tagset that Link... The seealso, label and comment elements are provided simply... 2.8 Multiple Descriptor Sets and POWDER Flexibility Example 2-14: An Ordered List of DRs, each with Multiple De... 3 The POWDER Processor It will be able to process XML and RDF, and it is Example 3-1: Example Result from a POWDER Processor [RDF/XM... Example 3-2: Example 'Not Known Result' from a POWDER Proce... 3.1 Error Handling 3.2 POWDER Processor Conformance Statement return results as RDF in alternative serializations or as H... 4 Associating Resources and DRs 4.1 Linking a Resource to a POWDER Document 4.1.1 (X)HTML link Elements Example 4-1: using the link element to relate an XHTML docu... POWDER WG would like to see the HTTP Link Header re-instated... 4.1.2 HTTP Link Headers 4.1.3 Semantic Linkage Using the describedby Property Example 4-2: RDFa snippet using wdrs:describedby [HTML]... Example 4-3: RDFa snippet using two wdrs:describedby proper... Example 4-4: ATOM feed with links to POWDER documents [XML]... 4.2 Linking a Resource to a POWDER Processor to Acquire RDF 4.3 Linking POWDER documents Example 4-5: A POWDER Document Linking to Another POWDER [X... 4.4 Requesting a DR from a Repository 5 Trust 5.1 Discovering the Trust Mechanism: the authenticate Property 5.2 Certification using POWDER Example 5-1: Example of a Certificate, expressed as a DR [X... The inverse relationship is also supported by the certifiedb... Example 5-2: Example of the certificate in Example 5-1, exp... 5.2.1 Full Interpretation of Example 5-1 5.3 Supporting Evidence: The supportedby Property Example 5-3: A DR Claiming Conformance to mobileOK, Support... 5.4 Trusted Source 5.5 Machine Learning 5.6 Trust Summary 6 References [XGR] [WCL-XG] [GROUP] [IRI] [WDRB] [WDR] [WDRS] [WDRD] [PDR-GRDDL] [USECASES] [PRIMER] [TESTS] [FORMAL] [GRDDL] RFC2119 [XF] RDFa RFC2616 SPARQL [mobileOK] [mobileOK Checker] [FOAF [DC W3C DTF WSDL [XMLSIG] [WOT] 7 Acknowledgements 8 Change Log 8.1 Changes since First Public Working Draft 8.2 Changes since 17 March 2008 8.3 Changes since 30 June 2008 Appendix A: Summary of POWDER Elements & Properties A.1 XML Elements (in the wdr namespace) powder attribution issuedby issued dr iriset descriptorset include node displaytext displayicon ol abouthosts tagset tag seealso label comment typeof more validfrom validuntil sha1sum certified certifiedby supportedby A.2 RDF/OWL Classes and Properties (in the wdrs namespace) issuedby matchesregex notknownto Processor describedby Document authenticate
or

Refinement of the section concerned:

Status:

open proposal pending resolved_yes resolved_no resolved_partial other assigned to Nobody

Type: substantive editorial typo question general comment undefined

Comment:

whilst our use of HTTP Link is right in Mark's view, the
registration of rel="powder" probably isn't. Section 4.2 [2] of the
draft says:

"A Link relation is a way of indicating the semantics of a link. Link
relations are not format-specific, and MUST NOT specify a particular
format or media type that they are to be used with."

I was concerned about this since rel="powder" /does/ indicate a
particular format (i.e. POWDER). I raised this on the HTTP list and
Jonathan Rees replied [3] that he thought this referred to the origin of
the link, not its target. Mark said no - actually the intention is that
/neither/ end of the link should be format-specific - that's the job of
the MIME type.

I said that we were wary of trying to register a new MIME type - after
all, POWDER is either XML or RDF/OWL (semantic extension
notwithstanding) and that HTML Profile meant we didn't /need/ to
register either rel="powder" or a new MIME type. Well... that's true but
we are talking about registering the @rel type so that argument rather
loses potency!

Mark pointed me to a doc [4] that is an entry point for a description of
how we would register the POWDER Media type which actually looks pretty
simple - being in a W3C Rec document means that IETF is likely to agree
to the new type with little delay.

To get to the point, Mark's recommendation is that we

1. Use a more generic @rel type of describedby (something other groups
want as well btw)

2. Register a POWDER-specific Media type.

Related issues: (space separated ids)

WG Notes:

Resolution:

(Please make sure the resolution is adapted for public consumption)