Relation Name
appeal
Description
Refers to a resource used to request review or reconsideration of the prior decision identified by or unambiguously associated with the link context.
Reference
https://risuinstitute.org/rels/appeal
Additional Information
This request is for registration of the token appeal.
The current experimental specification uses the RFC 8288 extension relation URI:
https://risuinstitute.org/rels/appeal
The specification explicitly distinguishes that extension URI from a potential registered token appeal and does not claim that RFC 8288 makes the two identifiers equivalent.
The public specification is currently v0.2 and remains Experimental. Its reviewed source is anchored by the annotated Git tag and GitHub release:
https://github.com/moon10021017/risu-institute/releases/tag/appeal-semantic-v0.2
Release commit:
c240386fcbdf2a22423d7accd11056a4f31d3265
The deployed canonical specification was verified byte-for-byte against that release source.
Controlled interoperability evidence is published at:
https://risuinstitute.org/work/appeal-interoperability/
In one controlled clean-room experiment, an implementation session acquired the relation meaning from the public specification and RFC 8288 without access to the consumer implementation, independently designed an RFC 8288 publisher, and a pre-existing provider-independent consumer subsequently discovered the resulting affordance without provider mapping or semantic inference.
This experiment is offered as evidence of specification clarity and interoperability only, not as evidence of ecosystem adoption.
There is also independent Internet use of closely related appeal affordances. PayPal's Disputes API uses an appeal HATEOAS link in its dispute flow:
https://developer.paypal.com/docs/disputes/integration-guide/
Stream separately exposes appeals against moderation decisions:
https://getstream.io/moderation/docs/node/content-moderation/appeals/
Neither PayPal nor Stream is claimed to implement or adopt the RISU relation identifier.
RISU Institute is a new research initiative and publication surface. No claim of established community adoption of this relation is made. I have read this repository's guidance regarding suitable specification references. I would welcome the experts' judgment on whether the current public specification, release-stability record, interoperability evidence, and independent Internet-use evidence are sufficient for registration. If the specification reference is not yet suitable, guidance on the remaining requirement would be appreciated.
Relation Name
appeal
Description
Refers to a resource used to request review or reconsideration of the prior decision identified by or unambiguously associated with the link context.
Reference
https://risuinstitute.org/rels/appeal
Additional Information
This request is for registration of the token
appeal.The current experimental specification uses the RFC 8288 extension relation URI:
https://risuinstitute.org/rels/appeal
The specification explicitly distinguishes that extension URI from a potential registered token
appealand does not claim that RFC 8288 makes the two identifiers equivalent.The public specification is currently v0.2 and remains Experimental. Its reviewed source is anchored by the annotated Git tag and GitHub release:
https://github.com/moon10021017/risu-institute/releases/tag/appeal-semantic-v0.2
Release commit:
c240386fcbdf2a22423d7accd11056a4f31d3265
The deployed canonical specification was verified byte-for-byte against that release source.
Controlled interoperability evidence is published at:
https://risuinstitute.org/work/appeal-interoperability/
In one controlled clean-room experiment, an implementation session acquired the relation meaning from the public specification and RFC 8288 without access to the consumer implementation, independently designed an RFC 8288 publisher, and a pre-existing provider-independent consumer subsequently discovered the resulting affordance without provider mapping or semantic inference.
This experiment is offered as evidence of specification clarity and interoperability only, not as evidence of ecosystem adoption.
There is also independent Internet use of closely related appeal affordances. PayPal's Disputes API uses an
appealHATEOAS link in its dispute flow:https://developer.paypal.com/docs/disputes/integration-guide/
Stream separately exposes appeals against moderation decisions:
https://getstream.io/moderation/docs/node/content-moderation/appeals/
Neither PayPal nor Stream is claimed to implement or adopt the RISU relation identifier.
RISU Institute is a new research initiative and publication surface. No claim of established community adoption of this relation is made. I have read this repository's guidance regarding suitable specification references. I would welcome the experts' judgment on whether the current public specification, release-stability record, interoperability evidence, and independent Internet-use evidence are sufficient for registration. If the specification reference is not yet suitable, guidance on the remaining requirement would be appreciated.