Hi Patrick,
I just published a new version fixing the issues you pointed out in your
feedback.
In detail:
- corrected the JSON content of Figure 2
- clarified the meaning of both context and target URIs in a result
subset link. Hope this change meets your remark.
Best,
Mario
Il 27/04/2020 19:13, Patrick Mevzek ha scritto:
On Mon, Apr 27, 2020, at 11:46, Mario Loffredo wrote:
Il 27/04/2020 08:04, Patrick Mevzek ha scritto:
Also:
couldn't each fieldset have a list of jsonPath elements (similar to what is
done in
draft-ietf-regext-rdap-sorting-and-paging)
to properly list the fields concerned?
I dropped this solution because it seemed to me conceptually valid but
very inefficient.
Ok, I see.
TBH, I am not sure to understand:
- why there are multiple links elements (the example given shows only one, what
would be other ones?)
The figure is uncorrect. I missed to fix this issue in the last version.
There are multiple field sets but each field set includes a single link
because each field set is an alternative view of the results provided
according to the current field set.
Great, that was my understanding too.
- why value there is different from href (and hence why value is needed at all),
why is the current fieldSet the "context URI" of any other fieldset used for
same query?
RFC8288 defines the context URI to be, for HTML serialization:
"The context of the
link is the URI associated with the entire HTML document. "
The use of both the "value" and the "href" JSON values is compliant to
what is shown in RFC7483. The context is the URI of the current view of
a resource (i.e. the collection of objects returned according to the
current fiel set) while the target is the URI of an alternative view of
the same resource (i.e. the collection of objects provided according
another field set).
Ok. Maybe put that in the draft (value = current document, href = other document
with other fieldset applied)>
There is no real explanation of the context for RDAP, but based on that maybe
it should be a link to the same query with fieldSet "full"?
I think that we need to agree about the meaning of "context" in RDAP. It
Yes, I need this point should be explained better in rfc7483bis,
hoping that it could be considered as a clarification/correction point.
--
Dr. Mario Loffredo
Systems and Technological Development Unit
Institute of Informatics and Telematics (IIT)
National Research Council (CNR)
via G. Moruzzi 1, I-56124 PISA, Italy
Phone: +39.0503153497
Mobile: +39.3462122240
Web: http://www.iit.cnr.it/mario.loffredo
#pleasestayathome
_______________________________________________
regext mailing list
regext@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/regext
