
|
If you were logged in you would be able to see more operations.
|
|
|
| Proposal: |
Let's use distinct names for the two types of links: Relationships use relationship-source, feeds use feed-source.
|
|
There's some confusion caused by using the source link for relationships and feeds. See lines 138-140:
"This link references the source of the current object. In a relationship object, this link references the source object. In feeds, this link references the atom entry document of the object creating the feed."
And lines 430-432:
3.4.3.5.1.1 source
The source link relation points to the underlying CMIS Type Definition as Atom Entry. This link relation MUST be on the CMIS Type Feed.
The distinction between the two usages of this link needs clarification. Should this one link name be used for these two different things? Maybe it is two links so that it is clearer (and easier to describe)?
|
|
Description
|
There's some confusion caused by using the source link for relationships and feeds. See lines 138-140:
"This link references the source of the current object. In a relationship object, this link references the source object. In feeds, this link references the atom entry document of the object creating the feed."
And lines 430-432:
3.4.3.5.1.1 source
The source link relation points to the underlying CMIS Type Definition as Atom Entry. This link relation MUST be on the CMIS Type Feed.
The distinction between the two usages of this link needs clarification. Should this one link name be used for these two different things? Maybe it is two links so that it is clearer (and easier to describe)? |
Show » |
|
For feeds, I think we should use one of the existing links (alternate, related, or via) defined by Atom. I think a case could be made for any of them, but it seems like via might be the best:
The value "via" signifies that the IRI in the value of the href attribute
identifies a resource that is the source of the information provided in
the containing element.