This is the Proposed Recommendation working draft where the Working Group has received community feedback, addressed all raised issues, produced a test suite and received implementation feedback. For changes since last publication, see . A test suite is available at [[LDP-Tests]].
This specification describes the use of HTTP for accessing, updating, creating and deleting resources from servers that expose their resources as Linked Data. It provides clarifications and extensions of the rules of Linked Data [[LINKED-DATA]]:
This specification discusses standard HTTP and RDF techniques used when constructing clients and servers that create, read, and write Linked Data Platform Resources. LDP Primer provides an entry-level introduction with many examples in the context of a fictional application. LDP Best Practices and Guidelines discusses best practices that you should use, and anti-patterns you should avoid, when constructing these clients and servers.
This specification defines a special type of Linked Data Platform Resource: a Container. Containers are very useful in building application models involving collections of resources, often homogeneous ones. For example, universities offer a collection of classes and a collection of faculty members, each faculty member teaches a collection of courses, and so on. This specification discusses how to work with containers. Resources can be added to containers using standard HTTP operations like POST (see ).
The intention of this specification is to enable additional rules and layered groupings of rules as additional specifications. The scope is intentionally narrow to provide a set of key rules for reading and writing Linked Data that most, if not all, other specifications will depend upon and implementations will support.
This specification provides some approaches to deal with large resources. An extension to this specification provides the ability to break large resource representations into multiple paged responses [[LDP-PAGING]].
For context and background, it could be useful to read Linked Data Platform Use Case and Requirements [[LDP-UCR]] and .
Terminology is based on W3C's Architecture of the World Wide Web [[!WEBARCH]] and Hyper-text Transfer Protocol ([[!RFC7230]], [[!RFC7231]], [[!RFC7232]]).
The terms "client" and "server" refer only to the roles that these programs perform for a particular connection. The same program might act as a client on some connections and a server on others.
HTTP enables the use of intermediaries to satisfy requests through a chain of connections. There are three common forms of HTTP intermediary: proxy, gateway, and tunnel. In some cases, a single intermediary might act as an origin server, proxy, gateway, or tunnel, switching behavior based on the nature of each request. [[!RFC7230]].
membership-constant-URI | membership-predicate | member-derived-URI |
member-derived-URI | membership-predicate | membership-constant-URI |
ldp:member
and dcterms:isPartOf
are representative examples.
Each linked container exposes properties (see ) that allow clients to determine which pattern it uses, what the actual membership-predicate and membership-constant-URI values are, and (for containers that allow the creation of new members) what value is used for the member-derived-URI based on the client's input to the creation process.
The namespace for LDP is http://www.w3.org/ns/ldp#
.
Sample resource representations are provided in text/turtle
format [[turtle]].
Commonly used namespace prefixes:
@prefix dcterms: <http://purl.org/dc/terms/>. @prefix foaf: <http://xmlns.com/foaf/0.1/>. @prefix rdf: <http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#>. @prefix ldp: <http://www.w3.org/ns/ldp#>. @prefix xsd: <http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema#>.
The status of the sections of Linked Data Platform 1.0 (this document) is as follows:
A conforming LDP client is a conforming HTTP client [[!RFC7230]] that follows the rules defined by LDP in and also .
A conforming LDP server is a conforming HTTP server [[!RFC7230]] that follows the rules defined by LDP in when it is serving LDPRs, and also when it is serving LDPCs. LDP does not constrain its behavior when serving other HTTP resources.
Linked Data Platform Resources (LDPRs) are HTTP resources that conform to the simple patterns and conventions in this section. HTTP requests to access, modify, create or delete LDPRs are accepted and processed by LDP servers. Most LDPRs are domain-specific resources that contain data for an entity in some domain, which could be commercial, governmental, scientific, religious, or other.
Some of the rules defined in this document provide clarification and refinement of the base Linked Data rules [[LINKED-DATA]]; others address additional needs.
The rules for Linked Data Platform Resources address basic questions such as:
Additional non-normative guidance is available in the LDP Best Practices and Guidelines that addresses questions such as:
The following sections define the conformance rules for LDP servers when serving LDPRs.
LDP-RS's representations may be too big, one strategy is to break up the response representation into client consumable chunks called pages. A separate LDP specification outlines the conformance rules around pagination [[LDP-PAGING]].
A LDP server can manage two kinds of LDPRs, those resources whose state is represented using RDF (LDP-RS) and those using other formats (LDP-NR). LDP-RSs have the unique quality that their representation is based on RDF, which addresses a number of use cases from web metadata, open data models, machine processable information, and automated processing by software agents [[!rdf11-concepts]]. LDP-NRs are almost anything on the Web today: images, HTML pages, word processing documents, spreadsheets, etc. and LDP-RSs hold metadata associated with LDP-NRs in some cases.
The LDP-NRs and LDP-RSs are simply sub-types of LDPRs, as illustrated in .
Link
header
with a target URI of http://www.w3.org/ns/ldp#Resource
, and
a link relation type of type
(that is, rel="type"
)
in all responses to requests made
to an LDPR's HTTP Request-URI
[[!RFC5988]].
Note: The HTTP
Link
header is the method by which servers assert their support for the LDP specification on a specific resource in a way that clients can inspect dynamically at run-time. This is not equivalent to the presence of a (subject-URI,rdf:type
,ldp:Resource
) triple in an LDP-RS. The presence of the header asserts that the server complies with the LDP specification's constraints on HTTP interactions with LDPRs, that is it asserts that the resource has Etags, supports OPTIONS, and so on, which is not true of all Web resources.Note: A LDP server can host a mixture of LDP-RSs and LDP-NRs, and therefore there is no implication that LDP support advertised on one HTTP
Request-URI
means that other resources on the same server are also LDPRs. Each HTTPRequest-URI
needs to be individually inspected, in the absence of outside information.
Request-URI
when the resource already exists, and to the URI of the created resource when the request results
in the creation of a new resource.
http://www.w3.org/ns/ldp#constrainedBy
,
and a target URI identifying a set of constraints
[[!RFC5988]], to all responses to requests that fail due to violation of
those constraints. For example, a server that refuses resource creation
requests via HTTP PUT, POST, or PATCH would return this Link
header on its
4xx responses to such requests.
The same Link
header MAY be provided on other responses. LDP neither
defines nor constrains the representation of the link's target resource. Natural language
constraint documents are therefore permitted,
although machine-readable ones facilitate better client interactions.
The appropriate context URI can vary based on the request's semantics and method;
unless the response is otherwise
constrained, the default (the effective request URI) SHOULD be used.
GET
method for LDPRs.
GET
method.
Per [[!RFC7231]], this HTTP method is optional and this specification does not require LDP servers to support it. When a LDP server supports this method, this specification imposes no new requirements for LDPRs.
Clients can create LDPRs via POST
() to a LDPC,
via PUT
(), or any other methods allowed
for HTTP resources. Any server-imposed constraints on LDPR creation or update
must be advertised to clients.
Per [[!RFC7231]], this HTTP method is optional and this specification does not require LDP servers to support it. When a LDP server supports this method, this specification imposes the following new requirements for LDPRs.
Any server-imposed constraints on LDPR creation or update must be advertised to clients.
PUT
is accepted on an existing resource,
LDP servers MUST
replace the entire persistent state of the identified resource with
the entity representation in the body of the request.
LDP servers MAY ignore LDP-server-managed properties,
and MAY ignore other properties such as dcterms:modified
and dcterms:creator
if they are handled specially by the server
(for example, if the server overrides the value or supplies a default value).
Any LDP servers that wish
to support a more sophisticated merge of data provided by the client
with existing state stored on the server for a resource MUST use HTTP
PATCH
, not HTTP PUT
.
PUT
request is received
that attempts to change properties the server does not allow clients to modify,
LDP servers MUST
fail the request by responding with a 4xx range status code (typically
409 Conflict).
LDP servers SHOULD provide a corresponding response body containing
information about which properties could not be
persisted.
The format of the 4xx response body is not constrained by LDP.
Non-normative note: Clients might provide properties equivalent to those already in the resource's state, e.g. as part of a GET/update representation/PUT sequence, and those PUT requests are intended to work as long as the LDP-server-managed properties are identical on the GET response and the subsequent PUT request. This is in contrast to other cases like write-once properties that the server does not allow clients to modify once set; properties like this are under client and/or server control but are not constrained by LDP, so they are not LDP-server-managed triples.
PUT
request is received that contains properties the server
chooses not to persist, e.g. unknown content,
LDP servers MUST respond with an appropriate 4xx range status code
[[!RFC7231]].
LDP servers SHOULD provide a corresponding response body containing
information about which properties could not be
persisted.
The format of the 4xx response body is not constrained by LDP. LDP servers
expose these application-specific constraints as described in .
If-Match
header and HTTP ETags
to ensure it isn’t
modifying a resource that has changed since the client last retrieved
its representation. LDP servers SHOULD require the HTTP If-Match
header and HTTP ETags
to detect collisions. LDP servers MUST respond with status code 412
(Condition Failed) if ETag
s fail to match when there are no other
errors with the request [[!RFC7232]]. LDP servers that require conditional requests MUST respond with status code 428
(Precondition Required) when the absence of a precondition is the only reason for rejecting the request [[!RFC6585]].
PUT
.
Per [[!RFC7231]], this HTTP method is optional and this specification does not require LDP servers to support it. When a LDP server supports this method, this specification imposes no new blanket requirements for LDPRs.
Additional requirements on HTTP DELETE
for LDPRs within containers can be found in
.
Note that certain LDP mechanisms rely on HTTP headers, and HTTP generally requires that
HEAD
responses include the same headers as GET
responses.
Thus, implementers should also carefully read sections
and .
HEAD
method.
Per [[!RFC5789]], this HTTP method is optional and this specification does not require LDP servers to support it. When a LDP server supports this method, this specification imposes the following new requirements for LDPRs.
Any server-imposed constraints on LDPR creation or update must be advertised to clients.
PATCH
MUST
include an Accept-Patch
HTTP response header [[!RFC5789]] on HTTP OPTIONS
requests, listing patch document media type(s) supported by the server.
This specification imposes the following new requirements on HTTP OPTIONS
for LDPRs
beyond those in [[!RFC7231]]. Other sections of this specification, for example
PATCH,
Accept-Post,
add other requirements on OPTIONS
responses.
OPTIONS
method.
OPTIONS
request on the LDPR’s URL with the HTTP
Method tokens in the HTTP response header Allow
.
The following section contains normative clauses for Linked Data Platform RDF Source.
rdf:type
,
and whose object is ldp:Resource
,
but there is no requirement to materialize this triple in the LDP-RS representation.
rdf:type
set explicitly. This makes the representations much more useful to
client applications that don’t support inferencing.
rdf:type
of ldp:RDFSource
for Linked Data Platform RDF Source.
Request-URI
of the LDP-RS is typically the subject of most triples in the response.
rdf:type
triples with different objects.
rdf:type
values
of a given LDP-RS can change over time.
GET
that
it doesn’t change whether it understands the predicates or not, when
its intent is to perform an update using HTTP PUT
. The use of HTTP
PATCH
instead of HTTP PUT
for update avoids this burden for clients
[[!RFC5789]].
Accept
header specifying text/turtle
,
unless HTTP content negotiation requires a different outcome
[[!turtle]].
Non-normative note: In other words, Turtle must be returned by LDP servers in the usual case clients would expect (client requests it) as well as cases where the client requests Turtle or other media type(s), content negotiation results in a tie, and Turtle is one of the tying media types. For example, if theAccept
header liststext/turtle
as one of several media types with the highest relative quality factor (q=
value), LDP servers must respond with Turtle. HTTP servers in general are not required to resolve ties in this way, or to support Turtle at all, but LDP servers are. On the other hand, if Turtle is one of several requested media types, but another media type the server supports has a higher relative quality factor, standard HTTP content negotiation rules apply and the server (LDP or not) would not respond with Turtle.
text/turtle
representation of the requested LDP-RS whenever
the Accept
request header is absent [[!turtle]].
application/ld+json
representation of the requested LDP-RS
when the request includes an Accept
header, unless content negotiation
or Turtle support
requires a different outcome [[!JSON-LD]].
The following section contains normative clauses for Linked Data Platform Non-RDF Source.
Link
header
with a target URI of http://www.w3.org/ns/ldp#NonRDFSource
, and
a link relation type of type
(that is, rel="type"
)
in responses to requests made
to the LDP-NR's HTTP Request-URI
[[!RFC5988]].
Many HTTP applications and sites have organizing concepts that partition the overall space of resources into smaller containers. Blog posts are grouped into blogs, wiki pages are grouped into wikis, and products are grouped into catalogs. Each resource created in the application or site is created within an instance of one of these container-like entities, and users can list the existing artifacts within one. Containers answer some basic questions, which are:
This document defines the representation and behavior of containers
that address these issues. There are multiple types of containers defined
to support a variety of use cases, all that support a base set of capabilities.
The contents of a container is
defined by a set of triples in its representation (and state) called
the containment triples that follow a fixed pattern.
Additional types of containers allow for the set of members of a container to be
defined by a set of triples in its representation called
the membership triples that follow a consistent pattern
(see the linked-to definition for the possible patterns).
The membership triples of a container all
have the same predicate, called the membership predicate,
and either the subject or the object is also a consistent value
– the remaining position of the membership
triples (the one that varies) define the members of the container.
In the simplest cases, the
consistent value will be the LDPC resource's URI, but it does not
have to be. The membership predicate is also variable and will often
be a predicate from the server application vocabulary or the ldp:member
predicate.
In LDP 1.0, there exists a way for clients to request responses that contain only partial representations of the containers. Applications may define additional means by which the response representations contain a filtered set of data and including (or excluding) additional details, those means are application-specific and not defined in this document.
This document includes a set of guidelines for creating new resources and adding them to the list of resources linked to a container. It goes on to explain how to learn about a set of related resources, regardless of how they were created or added to the container's membership. It also defines behavior when resources created using a container are later deleted; deleting containers removes membership information and possibly performs some cleanup tasks on unreferenced member resources.
The following illustrates a very simple container with only three members and some information about the container (the fact that it is a container and a brief title):
Request tohttp://example.org/c1/
:
GET /c1/ HTTP/1.1 Host: example.org Accept: text/turtleResponse:
HTTP/1.1 200 OK Content-Type: text/turtle Date: Thu, 12 Jun 2014 18:26:59 GMT ETag: "8caab0784220148bfe98b738d5bb6d13" Accept-Post: text/turtle, application/ld+json Allow: POST,GET,OPTIONS,HEAD,PUT Link: <http://www.w3.org/ns/ldp#BasicContainer>; rel="type", <http://www.w3.org/ns/ldp#Resource>; rel="type" Transfer-Encoding: chunked @prefix dcterms: <http://purl.org/dc/terms/>. @prefix ldp: <http://www.w3.org/ns/ldp#>. <http://example.org/c1/> a ldp:BasicContainer; dcterms:title "A very simple container"; ldp:contains <r1>, <r2>, <r3>.
The preceding example is very straightforward: there are containment triples
whose subject is the container, whose predicate is
ldp:contains
, and whose objects are the URIs of the contained resources,
and there is no distinction between member resources and contained resources.
A POST to this container will create a new resource
and add it to the list of contained resources by adding a new containment triple
to the container. This type of container is called a
Linked Data Platform Basic Container.
Sometimes you have to build on existing models incrementally, so you have fewer degrees of freedom in the resource model. In these situations, it can be useful to help clients map LDP patterns onto existing vocabularies, or to include members not created via the container; LDP Direct Containers meet those kinds of needs. Direct Containers allow membership triples to use a subject other than the container itself as the consistent membership value, and/or to use a predicate from an application's domain model as the membership predicate.
Let's start with a pre-existing domain resource for a person's net worth, as illustrated immediately below, and then see how a Container resource can be applied in subsequent examples:
Request tohttp://example.org/netWorth/nw1/
:
GET /netWorth/nw1/ HTTP/1.1 Host: example.org Accept: text/turtleResponse:
HTTP/1.1 200 OK Content-Type: text/turtle Date: Thu, 12 Jun 2014 18:26:59 GMT ETag: "0f6b5bd8dc1f754a1238a53b1da34f6b" Link: <http://www.w3.org/ns/ldp#RDFSource>; rel="type", <http://www.w3.org/ns/ldp#Resource>; rel="type" Allow: GET,OPTIONS,HEAD,PUT,DELETE Transfer-Encoding: chunked @prefix ldp: <http://www.w3.org/ns/ldp#>. @prefix o: <http://example.org/ontology#>. <http://example.org/netWorth/nw1/> a o:NetWorth; o:netWorthOf <http://example.org/users/JohnZSmith>; o:asset <assets/a1>, <assets/a2>; o:liability <liabilities/l1>, <liabilities/l2>, <liabilities/l3>.
In the preceding example, there is a rdf:type
of o:NetWorth
indicating the
resource represents an instance of a person's net worth and a o:netWorthOf
predicate indicating
the associated person. There are two sets of same-subject, same-predicate triples; one for assets and
one for liabilities. Existing domain-specific applications exist that depend on those types and
predicates, so changing them incompatibly would be frowned upon.
It would be helpful to be able to use LDP patterns to manage the assets and liabilities-related triples. Doing so using a Basic Container would require duplicating much of the information with different types and predicates, which would be onerous for large resources. Direct Containers provide a middle ground, by giving LDP clients a way to map existing domain-specific resources to LDP's types and interaction models. In this specific example, it would be helpful to be able to manage the assets and liabilities triples consistently, for example by using LDP containers. One way to do this is to create two containers, one to manage assets and another liabilities, as separate HTTP resources. Existing clients have no need to interact with those containers, whereas LDP-enabled clients now have container URLs that they can interact with. The existing resource remains unchanged so that existing clients continue to function normally. This is illustrated in the set of related examples, one example per HTTP resource, starting with the LDP-RS example from before:
Request tohttp://example.org/netWorth/nw1/
:
GET /netWorth/nw1/ HTTP/1.1 Host: example.org Accept: text/turtleResponse:
HTTP/1.1 200 OK Content-Type: text/turtle Date: Thu, 12 Jun 2014 18:26:59 GMT ETag: "0f6b5bd8dc1f754a1238a53b1da34f6b" Link: <http://www.w3.org/ns/ldp#RDFSource>; rel="type", <http://www.w3.org/ns/ldp#Resource>; rel="type" Allow: GET,OPTIONS,HEAD,PUT,DELETE Transfer-Encoding: chunked @prefix ldp: <http://www.w3.org/ns/ldp#>. @prefix o: <http://example.org/ontology#>. <http://example.org/netWorth/nw1/> a o:NetWorth; o:netWorthOf <http://example.org/users/JohnZSmith>; o:asset <assets/a1>, <assets/a2>; o:liability <liabilities/l1>, <liabilities/l2>, <liabilities/l3>.
The structure of the net worth resource is completely unchanged, so any existing domain-specific applications continue to work without impact. LDP clients, on the other hand, have no way to understand that the asset and liability triples correspond in any way to LDP containers. For that, they need the next two resources.
The first container is a LDP Direct Container to manage assets. Direct Containers add the concept of membership and flexibility on how to specify the membership triples.
Request tohttp://example.org/netWorth/nw1/assets/
:
GET /netWorth/nw1/assets/ HTTP/1.1 Host: example.org Accept: text/turtleResponse:
HTTP/1.1 200 OK Content-Type: text/turtle Date: Thu, 12 Jun 2014 18:26:59 GMT ETag: "6df36eef2631a1795bfe9ab76760ea75" Accept-Post: text/turtle, application/ld+json Allow: POST,GET,OPTIONS,HEAD Link: <http://www.w3.org/ns/ldp#DirectContainer>; rel="type", <http://www.w3.org/ns/ldp#Resource>; rel="type" Transfer-Encoding: chunked @prefix ldp: <http://www.w3.org/ns/ldp#>. @prefix dcterms: <http://purl.org/dc/terms/>. @prefix o: <http://example.org/ontology#>. <http://example.org/netWorth/nw1/assets/> a ldp:DirectContainer; dcterms:title "The assets of JohnZSmith"; ldp:membershipResource <http://example.org/netWorth/nw1/>; ldp:hasMemberRelation o:asset; ldp:contains <a1>, <a2>.
In the preceding asset container, the consistent membership value
(membership-constant-URI, still in the subject position) is not the
container itself – it is the (separate) net worth resource. The
membership predicate is o:asset
,
from the domain model. A POST of an asset representation to the asset container will create a new
asset and add it to net-worth's list of assets by adding a new membership triple
to the resource and a containment triple to the container.
The second container is a LDP Direct Container to manage liabilities.
Request tohttp://example.org/netWorth/nw1/liabilities/
:
GET /netWorth/nw1/liabilities/ HTTP/1.1 Host: example.org Accept: text/turtleResponse:
HTTP/1.1 200 OK Content-Type: text/turtle Date: Thu, 12 Jun 2014 18:26:59 GMT ETag: "9f50da01f792281ddcfebe9788372d07" Link: <http://www.w3.org/ns/ldp#DirectContainer>; rel="type", <http://www.w3.org/ns/ldp#Resource>; rel="type" Accept-Post: text/turtle, application/ld+json Allow: POST,GET,OPTIONS,HEAD Transfer-Encoding: chunked @prefix ldp: <http://www.w3.org/ns/ldp#>. @prefix dcterms: <http://purl.org/dc/terms/>. @prefix o: <http://example.org/ontology#>. <http://example.org/netWorth/nw1/liabilities/> a ldp:DirectContainer; dcterms:title "The liabilities of JohnZSmith"; ldp:membershipResource <http://example.org/netWorth/nw1/>; ldp:hasMemberRelation o:liability; ldp:contains <l1>, <l2>, <l3>.
The preceding liability container is completely analogous to the asset container above, simply
managing liabilities instead of assets and using the o:liability
predicate.
To add a another liability, a client would POST something like this to the liability container:
Request tohttp://example.org/netWorth/nw1/liabilities/
:
POST /netWorth/nw1/liabilities/ HTTP/1.1 Host: example.org Accept: text/turtle Content-Type: text/turtle Content-Length: 63 @prefix o: <http://example.org/ontology#>. <> a o:Liability. # plus any other properties that the domain says liabilities haveResponse:
HTTP/1.1 201 Created Location: http://example.org/netWorth/nw1/liabilities/l4 Date: Thu, 12 Jun 2014 19:56:13 GMT Link: <http://www.w3.org/ns/ldp#DirectContainer>; rel="type", <http://www.w3.org/ns/ldp#Resource>; rel="type"
Assuming the server successfully processes this request and assigns the URI
<http://example.org/netWorth/nw1/liabilities/l4>
to the
newly created liability resource, at least two new triples would be added.
<http://example.org/netWorth/nw1/> o:liability <liabilities/l4>
<http://example.org/netWorth/nw1/liabilities/> ldp:contains <l4>
.
You might wonder why we chose to create two new containers instead of making
http://example.org/netWorth/nw1/
itself a container.
A single net worth container would be a fine design if http://example.org/netWorth/nw1/
had only assets or only liabilities (basically: only a single predicate to manage),
but since it has separate predicates for assets and liabilities an ambiguity arises:
it is unspecified whether a client's creation request (POST)
should add a new o:asset
or o:liability
triple.
Having separate http://example.org/netWorth/nw1/assets/
and http://example.org/netWorth/nw1/liabilities/
containers
allows both assets and liabilities to be created
and linked to the net-worth resource using the appropriate predicate. Similar ambiguities arise
if the client wishes to list the members and/or contained resources.
Continuing in the multiple containers direction, we will now extend our net worth example to add a container for advisors (people) that have managed the assets and liabilities. We have decided to identify these advisors with URLs that contain a fragment (hash) to represent these real-world resources, not the documents that describe them.
Request tohttp://example.org/netWorth/nw1/
:
GET /netWorth/nw1/ HTTP/1.1 Host: example.org Accept: text/turtleResponse:
HTTP/1.1 200 OK Content-Type: text/turtle Date: Thu, 12 Jun 2014 18:26:59 GMT ETag: "e8d129f45ca31848fb56213844a32b49" Link: <http://www.w3.org/ns/ldp#DirectContainer>; rel="type", <http://www.w3.org/ns/ldp#Resource>; rel="type" Allow: GET,OPTIONS,HEAD,PUT,DELETE Transfer-Encoding: chunked @prefix ldp: <http://www.w3.org/ns/ldp#>. @prefix dcterms: <http://purl.org/dc/terms/>. @prefix foaf: <http://xmlns.com/foaf/0.1/>. @prefix o: <http://example.org/ontology#>. <http://example.org/netWorth/nw1/> a o:NetWorth; o:netWorthOf <http://example.org/users/JohnZSmith>; o:advisor <advisors/bob#me>, # URI of a person <advisors/marsha#me>. <advisors/> a ldp:IndirectContainer; dcterms:title "The asset advisors of JohnZSmith"; ldp:membershipResource <>; ldp:hasMemberRelation o:advisor; ldp:insertedContentRelation foaf:primaryTopic; ldp:contains <advisors/bob>, # URI of a document a.k.a. an information resource <advisors/marsha>. # describing a person
To handle this type of indirection, the triple with predicate of ldp:insertedContentRelation
and object of
foaf:primaryTopic
informs clients that when POSTing to this container, they need to include a triple of the
form (<>, foaf:primaryTopic, topic-URI)
to inform the server which URI to use
(topic-URI
) in the new membership triple.
This type of container is referred to as a LDP Indirect Container. It is similar to an LDP Direct Container but it provides an indirection to add (via a create request) as a member any resource, including a URI representing a real-world object. Create requests to LDP Direct Containers can only add information resources [[WEBARCH]] - the documents they create - as members.
To add a another advisor, a client would POST something like this to the advisors container:
Request tohttp://example.org/netWorth/nw1/advisors/
:
POST /netWorth/nw1/advisors/ HTTP/1.1 Host: example.org Accept: text/turtle Content-Type: text/turtle Slug: george Content-Length: 72 @prefix foaf: <http://xmlns.com/foaf/0.1/>. @prefix o: <http://example.org/ontology#>. <> a o:Advisor; foaf:primaryTopic <#me>. # plus any other properties that the domain says advisors haveResponse:
HTTP/1.1 201 Created Location: http://example.org/netWorth/nw1/advisors/george Date: Thu, 12 Jun 2014 19:56:13 GMT Link: <http://www.w3.org/ns/ldp#RDFSource>; rel="type", <http://www.w3.org/ns/ldp#Resource>; rel="type"
Assuming the server successfully processes this request and assigns the URI
<http://example.org/netWorth/nw1/advisors/george>
to the
newly created advisor resource, at least two new triples would be added.
<http://example.org/netWorth/nw1/> o:advisor <advisors/george#me>
<http://example.org/netWorth/nw1/advisors/> ldp:contains <george>
In summary, illustrates the LDP-defined container types: Basic, Direct, and Indirect, along with their class relationship to types of LDPRs.
The following table illustrates some differences between membership and containment triples. For details on the normative behavior, see appropriate sections below.
Completed Request | Effects | |
---|---|---|
Membership | Containment | |
LDPR created in LDP-BC | New triple: (LDPC, ldp:contains, LDPR) | Same |
LDPR created in LDP-DC | New triple links LDP-RS to created LDPR. LDP-RS URI may be same as LDP-DC | New triple: (LDPC, ldp:contains, LDPR) |
LDPR created in LDP-IC | New triple links LDP-RS to content indicated URI | New triple: (LDPC, ldp:contains, LDPR) |
LDPR is deleted | Membership triple may be removed | (LDPC, ldp:contains, LDPR) triple is removed |
LDPC is deleted | Triples and member resources may be removed | Triples of form (LDPC, ldp:contains, LDPR) and contained LDPRs may be removed |
The representation of a container
that has many members will be large. There are several important
cases where clients need to access only the subset of the container's properties
that are unrelated to member resources and unrelated to contained documents, for
example to determine the membership triple pattern and membership predicate of an
LDP-DC. LDP calls these minimal-container triples,
because they are what remains when the container has zero members and zero contained resources.
Since retrieving the whole container representation to
get this information may be onerous for clients and cause unnecessary
overhead on servers, we define a way to retrieve only
these property values (and more generally, a way to retrieve only the
subset of properties used to address other major clusters of use cases).
LDP adds parameters to the HTTP Prefer
header's
return=representation
preference for this
(see for details).
The example listed here only shows a simple case where few minimal-container triples are retrieved. In real world situations more complex cases are likely, such as those that add other predicates to containers, for example providing validation information and associating SPARQL endpoints. [[sparql11-query]]
Here is an example requesting the minimal-container triples of a
container identified by the URL http://example.org/container1/
.
Request to http://example.org/container1/
:
GET /container1/ HTTP/1.1 Host: example.org Accept: text/turtle Prefer: return=representation; include="http://www.w3.org/ns/ldp#PreferMinimalContainer"
Response:
HTTP/1.1 200 OK Content-Type: text/turtle ETag: "_87e52ce291112" Link: <http://www.w3.org/ns/ldp#DirectContainer>; rel="type", <http://www.w3.org/ns/ldp#Resource>; rel="type" Accept-Post: text/turtle, application/ld+json Allow: POST,GET,OPTIONS,HEAD Preference-Applied: return=representation Transfer-Encoding: chunked @prefix dcterms: <http://purl.org/dc/terms/>. @prefix ldp: <http://www.w3.org/ns/ldp#>. <http://example.org/container1/> a ldp:DirectContainer; dcterms:title "A Linked Data Platform Container of Acme Resources"; ldp:membershipResource <http://example.org/container1/>; ldp:hasMemberRelation ldp:member; ldp:insertedContentRelation ldp:MemberSubject; dcterms:publisher <http://acme.com/>.
LDP recommends using PATCH to update these properties, if necessary. It provides no facility for updating them via PUT without replacing the entire container's state.
The following section contains normative clauses for Linked Data Platform Container.
The Linked Data Platform does not define how clients discover LDPCs.
rdf:type
,
and whose object is ldp:RDFSource
,
but there is no requirement to materialize this triple in the LDPC representation.
rdf:type
of ldp:Container
for Linked Data Platform Container.
Non-normative note: LDPCs
might have additional types, like any LDP-RS.
rdf:Bag
,
rdf:Seq
or rdf:List
.
Link
header
with a target URI matching the type of container (see below) the
server supports, and
a link relation type of type
(that is, rel="type"
)
in all responses to requests made
to the LDPC's HTTP Request-URI
.
LDP servers MAY provide additional HTTP Link: rel="type"
headers.
The notes on the corresponding LDPR constraint apply
equally to LDPCs.
Valid container type URIs for
rel="type"
defined by this document are:
http://www.w3.org/ns/ldp#BasicContainer
- for LDP Basic Containershttp://www.w3.org/ns/ldp#DirectContainer
- for LDP Direct Containershttp://www.w3.org/ns/ldp#IndirectContainer
- for LDP Indirect Containers
Per the HTTP GET method is required and additional requirements can be found in .
Per [[!RFC7231]], this HTTP method is optional and this specification does not require LDP servers to support it. When a LDP server supports this method, this specification imposes the following new requirements for LDPCs.
Any server-imposed constraints on creation or update must be advertised to clients.
POST
to a known LDPC. If the resource was created successfully, LDP servers MUST
respond with status code 201 (Created) and the Location
header set to the new resource’s URL. Clients shall not expect any representation in the response
entity body on a 201 (Created) response.
POST
request to a LDPC results in the creation of a LDPR, a
containment triple MUST be added to the state of the LDPC
whose subject is the LDPC URI,
whose predicate is ldp:contains
and whose object is the URI for the newly created document (LDPR). Other triples may be added as well.
The newly created LDPR appears as a contained resource of the LDPC until the
newly created document is deleted or removed by other methods.
POST
of non-RDF representations
(LDP-NRs) for
creation of any kind of resource, for example binary resources. See the Accept-Post section for
details on how clients can discover whether a LDPC supports this behavior.
- If the request header specifies a LDPR interaction model, then the server MUST handle subsequent requests to the newly created resource's URI as if it is a LDPR. When the server treats the resource as a LDPR, then clients can only depend upon behaviors defined by LDPRs, even if the content contains an
rdf:type
triple indicating a type of LDPC. That is, if the server's statement conflicts with the content's, the server's statement wins.- If the request header specifies a LDPC interaction model, then the server MUST handle subsequent requests to the newly created resource's URI as if it is a LDPC.
- This specification does not constrain the server's behavior in other cases.
Clients use the same syntax, that is
HTTP Link
headers, to specify the desired interaction model when creating a resource as servers use to advertise it on responses.Note: A consequence of this is that LDPCs can be used to create LDPCs, if the server supports doing so.
Non-normative note: LDP assumes that the interaction model of a resource is fixed when the resource is created, and this is reflected in the language of the bullets. If an implementation were to extend LDP by allowing the interaction model to vary after creation, that is viewed as a compatible extension to LDP and the statements above would constrain the default interaction model rather than saying that no other behavior is possible.
Content-Type
request header whose value is text/turtle
[[!turtle]].
Content-Type
request header
to determine the request representation's format when the request has an entity body.
POST
, using the HTTP Slug
header as defined in [[!RFC5023]]. LDP adds
no new requirements to this usage, so its presence functions as a client hint to the server
providing a desired string to be incorporated into the server's final choice of resource URI.
POST
SHOULD NOT re-use URIs.
Location
response header), LDP servers MAY create an associated
LDP-RS
to contain data about the newly created LDP-NR.
If a LDP server creates this associated LDP-RS, it MUST indicate
its location in the response by adding a HTTP Link
header with
a context URI identifying the newly created LDP-NR (instead of the effective request URI),
a link relation value of describedby
,
and a target URI identifying the associated LDP-RS resource [[!RFC5988]].
POST
MUST
include an Accept-Post
response header on HTTP OPTIONS
responses, listing POST
request media type(s) supported by the server.
LDP only specifies the use of POST
for the purpose of creating new resources, but a server
can accept POST
requests with other semantics.
While "POST to create" is a common interaction pattern, LDP clients are not guaranteed, even when
making requests to a LDP server, that every successful POST
request will result in the
creation of a new resource; they must rely on out of band information for knowledge of which POST
requests,
if any, will have the "create new resource" semantics.
This requirement on LDP servers is intentionally stronger than the one levied in the
header registration; it is unrealistic to expect all existing resources
that support POST
to suddenly return a new header or for all new specifications constraining
POST
to be aware of its existence and require it, but it is a reasonable requirement for new
specifications such as LDP.
Content-Type
request header whose value is application/ld+json
[[!JSON-LD]].
Per [[!RFC7231]], this HTTP method is optional and this specification does not require LDP servers to support it. When a LDP server supports this method, this specification imposes the following new requirements for LDPCs.
Any server-imposed constraints on creation or update must be advertised to clients.
PUT
to update a LDPC’s containment triples;
if the server receives such a request, it SHOULD respond with a 409
(Conflict) status code.
PUT
SHOULD NOT re-use URIs.
Per [[!RFC7231]], this HTTP method is optional and this specification does not require LDP servers to support it. When a LDP server supports this method, this specification imposes the following new requirements for LDPCs.
Non-normative note: The LDP server might perform additional actions, as described in the normative references like [[!RFC7231]]. For example, the server could remove membership triples referring to the deleted LDPR, perform additional cleanup tasks for resources it knows are no longer referenced or have not been accessed for some period of time, and so on.
Note that certain LDP mechanisms
rely on HTTP headers, and HTTP recommends that
HEAD
responses include the same headers as GET
responses.
LDP servers must also include HTTP headers
on responses to OPTIONS
, see .
Thus, implementers supporting HEAD
should also carefully read the
and .
Per [[!RFC5789]], this HTTP method is optional and this specification does not require LDP servers to support it. When a LDP server supports this method, this specification imposes the following new requirements for LDPCs.
Any server-imposed constraints on LDPR creation or update must be advertised to clients.
PATCH
as the preferred method for
updating a LDPC's minimal-container triples.
This specification imposes the following new requirements on HTTP OPTIONS
for LDPCs.
Note that support for this method is required for LDPCs, since it is required for LDPRs and
LDPCs adhere to LDP-RS requirements.
request-URI
is a
LDP-NR with an associated LDP-RS,
a LDPC server MUST provide the same HTTP Link
response header as is required in the create response.
The following section contains normative clauses for Linked Data Platform Basic Container.
rdf:type
,
and whose object is ldp:Container
,
but there is no requirement to materialize this triple in the LDP-BC representation.
The following section contains normative clauses for Linked Data Platform Direct Container.
rdf:type
,
and whose object is ldp:Container
,
but there is no requirement to materialize this triple in the LDP-DC representation.
ldp:member
predicate as a LDPC's membership predicate
if there is no obvious predicate from an application vocabulary to use.
The state of a LDPC includes information about which
resources are its members, in the form of membership triples that
follow a consistent pattern. The LDPC's state contains enough information for clients to discern
the membership predicate, the other consistent membership
value used in the container's membership triples (membership-constant-URI),
and the position (subject or object) where those URIs
occurs in the membership triples.
Member resources can be
any kind of resource identified by a URI, LDPR or otherwise.
ldp:membershipResource
,
and whose object is the LDPC's membership-constant-URI.
Commonly the LDPC's URI is the membership-constant-URI, but LDP does not require this.
ldp:hasMemberRelation
or ldp:isMemberOfRelation
.
The object of the triple is constrained by other sections, such as
ldp:hasMemberRelation or
ldp:isMemberOfRelation, based on the
membership triple
pattern used by the container.
ldp:hasMemberRelation
,
and whose object is the URI of membership-predicate.
ldp:isMemberOfRelation
,
and whose object is the URI of membership-predicate.
ldp:insertedContentRelation
, ldp:MemberSubject
)
triple, but LDP imposes no requirement to materialize such a triple in the LDP-DC representation.
The value ldp:MemberSubject
means that the
member-derived-URI is the URI assigned by the server to a
document it creates; for example, if the client POSTs content to a container
that causes the container to create a new LDPR, ldp:MemberSubject
says
that the member-derived-URI is the URI assigned to the newly created LDPR.
POST
request to a LDPC results in the creation of a LDPR,
the LDPC MUST update its membership triples to reflect that addition, and the resulting
membership triple MUST be consistent with any LDP-defined predicates it exposes.
A LDP Direct Container's membership triples MAY also be modified via
through other means.
The following section contains normative clauses for Linked Data Platform Indirect Container.
rdf:type
,
and whose object is ldp:Container
,
but there is no requirement to materialize this triple in the LDP-IC representation.
ldp:insertedContentRelation
, and
whose object ICR describes how the member-derived-URI in
the container's membership triples is chosen.
The member-derived-URI is taken from some triple
( S, P, O ) in the document supplied by the client as input to the create request;
if ICR's value is P, then the member-derived-URI is
O. LDP does not define the behavior when more than one triple containing
the predicate P is present in the client's input.
For example, if the client POSTs RDF content to a container
that causes the container to create a new LDP-RS, and that content contains the triple
( <> , foaf:primaryTopic , bob#me )
foaf:primaryTopic
says
that the member-derived-URI is bob#me.
One consequence of this definition is that indirect container member creation is only
well-defined by LDP when the document supplied by the client as input to the create request
has an RDF media type.
ldp:insertedContentRelation
triple has an object
other than ldp:MemberSubject
and that create new resources
MUST add a triple to the container
whose subject is the container's URI,
whose predicate is ldp:contains
, and
whose object is the newly created resource's URI (which will be different from
the member-derived URI in this case).
This ldp:contains
triple can be the only link from the container to the newly created
resource in certain cases.
While readers, and especially implementers, of LDP are assumed to understand the information in its normative references, the working group has found that certain points are particularly important to understand. For those thoroughly familiar with the referenced specifications, these points might seem obvious, yet experience has shown that few non-experts find all of them obvious. This section enumerates these topics; it is simply re-stating (non-normatively) information locatable via the normative references.
POST
, PUT
, etc.).
Certain specific cases exist where a LDPC server might delete a resource and then later re-use the
URI when it identifies the same resource, but only when consistent with Web architecture.
While it is difficult to provide absolute implementation guarantees of non-reuse in all failure
scenarios, re-using URIs creates ambiguities for clients that are best avoided.
Request-URI
in response to a successful HTTP DELETE
request.
After such a request, a subsequent HTTP GET
on the same
Request-URI
usually results in a 404 (Not found) or 410 (Gone) status
code, although HTTP allows others.
DELETE
request.
It is also acceptable and common for LDP servers to
not do this – the server's behavior can vary, so LDP clients cannot depend on it.
PATCH
to allow modifications,
especially partial replacement, of their resources. No
minimal set of patch document formats is mandated by this document or by the definition of PATCH
[[RFC5789]].
Content-Type
request header is absent from a request,
LDP servers might infer the content type by inspecting the entity body contents ([[RFC7231]] section 3.1.1.5).
GET
on each member individually.
rdf:type
predicate.
The LDP Working Group proposes incorporation of the features described in this section.
The Accept-Post
header has applicability beyond LDP as outlined in this
IETF draft [[Accept-Post]].
This specification introduces a new HTTP response header Accept-Post
used
to specify the document formats accepted by the server on HTTP POST
requests.
It is modelled after the Accept-Patch
header defined in [[!RFC5789]].
Accept-Post
, using
the ABNF syntax defined in Section 1.2 of [[!RFC7231]], is:Accept-Post = "Accept-Post" ":" # media-range
The
Accept-Post
header specifies a comma-separated list of media ranges (with optional parameters) as defined by [[!RFC7231]], Section 5.3.2. TheAccept-Post
header, in effect, uses the same syntax as the HTTPAccept
header minus the optionalaccept-params
BNF production, since the latter does not apply toAccept-Post
.
Accept-Post
HTTP header SHOULD appear in the OPTIONS
response for any resource
that supports the use of the POST
method. The presence of the
Accept-Post
header in response to any method is an implicit
indication that POST
is allowed on the resource identified by the
Request-URI
. The presence of a specific document format in
this header indicates that that specific format is allowed on POST
requests to the
resource identified by the Request-URI
.
The Accept-Post response header must be added to the permanent registry (see [[!RFC3864]]).
Header field name: Accept-Post
Applicable Protocol: HTTP
Author/Change controller: W3C
Specification document: this specification
This specification introduces new parameters on the HTTP Prefer
request header's
return=representation
preference [[!RFC7240]], used optionally by clients to
supply a hint to help the server form a response that is most appropriate to
the client's needs. The LDP-defined parameters suggest the portion(s) of a resource's state that the
client application is interested in and, if received, is likely to be
processed. LDP Containers with large numbers of associated documents
and/or members will have large representations, and many client
applications may be interested in processing only a subset of the LDPC's
information (for example, only membership triples or only containment triples),
resulting in a potentially large savings in server, client,
and network processing.
Non-normative note: LDP server implementers should carefully consider the effects of these preferences on caching, as described in section 2 of [[!RFC7240]].
Non-normative note: [[!RFC7240]] recommends that server implementers include a
Preference-Applied
response header when the client cannot otherwise determine the server's
behavior with respect to honoring hints from the response content.
Examples illustrate some cases where the header is unnecessary.
include
hint defines a subset of a LDPR's content that a client
would like included in a representation.
The syntax for the include
parameter of the
HTTP Prefer
request header's
return=representation
preference [[!RFC7240]] is:include-parameter = "include" *WSP "=" *WSP ldp-uri-list
Where
WSP
is whitespace [[!RFC5234]], andldp-uri-list
is a double-quoted blank-delimited unordered set of URIs whose ABNF is given below. The generic preference BNF [[!RFC7240]] allows either a quoted string or a token as the value of a preference parameter; LDP assigns a meaning to the value only when it is a quoted string of the form:ldp-uri-list = DQUOTE *WSP URI *[ 1*WSP URI ] *WSP DQUOTE
where
DQUOTE
is a double quote [[!RFC5234]], andURI
is an absolute URI with an optional fragment component [[!RFC3986]].
omit
hint defines a subset of a LDPR's content that a client
would like omitted from a representation.
The syntax for the omit
parameter of the
HTTP Prefer
request header's
return=representation
preference [[!RFC7240]] is:omit-parameter = "omit" *WSP "=" *WSP ldp-uri-list
Where
WSP
andldp-uri-list
are defined as above for include.
include
and omit
parameters. It assigns no meaning to other URIs, although
other specifications MAY do so.Containment triples | http://www.w3.org/ns/ldp#PreferContainment |
Membership triples | http://www.w3.org/ns/ldp#PreferMembership |
Minimal-container triples | http://www.w3.org/ns/ldp#PreferMinimalContainer |
or the equivalent but deprecated term | |
http://www.w3.org/ns/ldp#PreferEmptyContainer |
Non-normative note: all currently defined URIs are only coherent for LDP-RSs, and in fact only for LDPCs, however in the future it is possible that additional URIs with other scopes of applicability could be defined.
If we assume a container like the one below:
# The following is the representation of # http://example.org/netWorth/nw1/assets/ # @base <http://example.org/netWorth/nw1/assets/>. @prefix dcterms: <http://purl.org/dc/terms/>. @prefix ldp: <http://www.w3.org/ns/ldp#>. @prefix o: <http://example.org/ontology#>. <> a ldp:DirectContainer; dcterms:title "The assets of JohnZSmith"; ldp:membershipResource <http://example.org/netWorth/nw1/>; ldp:hasMemberRelation o:asset; ldp:insertedContentRelation ldp:MemberSubject. <http://example.org/netWorth/nw1/> a o:NetWorth; o:asset <a1>, <a3>, <a2>. <a1> a o:Stock; o:marketValue 100.00 . <a2> a o:Cash; o:marketValue 50.00 . <a3> a o:RealEstateHolding; o:marketValue 300000 .
Clients interested only in information about the container
(for example, which membership predicate it uses) might use this hint on a GET
request:
Prefer: return=representation; include="http://www.w3.org/ns/ldp#PreferMinimalContainer"
A server that honors this hint would return a following response containing the HTTP header
Preference-Applied: return=representation
and this representation:
http://example.org/netWorth/nw1/assets/
:
GET /netWorth/nw1/assets/ HTTP/1.1 Host: example.org Accept: text/turtle Prefer: return=representation; include="http://www.w3.org/ns/ldp#PreferMinimalContainer"Response:
HTTP/1.1 200 OK Content-Type: text/turtle ETag: "_87e52ce291112" Link: <http://www.w3.org/ns/ldp#DirectContainer>; rel="type", <http://www.w3.org/ns/ldp#Resource>; rel="type" Accept-Post: text/turtle, application/ld+json Allow: POST,GET,OPTIONS,HEAD Preference-Applied: return=representation Transfer-Encoding: chunked @prefix dcterms: <http://purl.org/dc/terms/>. @prefix ldp: <http://www.w3.org/ns/ldp#>. @prefix o: <http://example.org/ontology#>. <http://example.org/netWorth/nw1/assets/> a ldp:DirectContainer; dcterms:title "The assets of JohnZSmith"; ldp:membershipResource <http://example.org/netWorth/nw1/>; ldp:hasMemberRelation o:asset; ldp:insertedContentRelation ldp:MemberSubject.
Clients interested only in information about the container
(same as before) might use this hint instead:
Prefer: return=representation; omit="http://www.w3.org/ns/ldp#PreferMembership http://www.w3.org/ns/ldp#PreferContainment"
. Note: Treating the two as equivalent is not recommended. While today this
omit
parameter value is equivalent to the preceding include
parameter value,
they may not be equivalent in the future
due to the definition of minimal-container triples.
Clients should preferentially use the include
parameter, as it more precisely communicates their needs.
A LDP 1.0 server that honors this hint would return the following response. Servers implementing later versions of LDP might return substantively different responses.
Request tohttp://example.org/netWorth/nw1/assets/
:
GET /netWorth/nw1/assets/ HTTP/1.1 Host: example.org Accept: text/turtle Prefer: return=representation; omit="http://www.w3.org/ns/ldp#PreferMembership http://www.w3.org/ns/ldp#PreferContainment"Response:
HTTP/1.1 200 OK Content-Type: text/turtle ETag: "_87e52ce291112" Link: <http://www.w3.org/ns/ldp#DirectContainer>; rel="type", <http://www.w3.org/ns/ldp#Resource>; rel="type" Accept-Post: text/turtle, application/ld+json Allow: POST,GET,OPTIONS,HEAD Preference-Applied: return=representation Transfer-Encoding: chunked @prefix dcterms: <http://purl.org/dc/terms/>. @prefix ldp: <http://www.w3.org/ns/ldp#>. @prefix o: <http://example.org/ontology#>. <http://example.org/netWorth/nw1/assets/> a ldp:DirectContainer; dcterms:title "The assets of JohnZSmith"; ldp:membershipResource <http://example.org/netWorth/nw1/>; ldp:hasMemberRelation o:asset; ldp:insertedContentRelation ldp:MemberSubject.
Clients interested only in information about the container
(for example, which membership predicate it uses) and its membership might use this hint on a GET
request:
Prefer: return=representation; include="http://www.w3.org/ns/ldp#PreferMembership http://www.w3.org/ns/ldp#PreferMinimalContainer"
.
A server that honors this hint would return
(at least) the following response, and perhaps only this (it might
well omit containment triples if they are not specifically requested).
In cases like this example, where a client can detect from the content that its hints were honored
(the presence of the predicates dcterms:title
and o:asset
demonstrate this in the representation below),
there is no need for the server to include a Preference-Applied
response header
in many common cases like a 200 (OK)
response. In other cases, like status code 303
,
the header would still be required for the client to know that the 303
response entity
is a representation of the resource identified by the Location
URI
instead of a short hypertext note (one with a hyperlink to
the same URI reference provided in the Location
header field [[RFC7231]]).
http://example.org/netWorth/nw1/assets/
:
GET /netWorth/nw1/assets/ HTTP/1.1 Host: example.org Accept: text/turtle Prefer: return=representation; include="http://www.w3.org/ns/ldp#PreferMembership http://www.w3.org/ns/ldp#PreferMinimalContainer"Response:
HTTP/1.1 200 OK Content-Type: text/turtle ETag: "_87e52ce291112" Link: <http://www.w3.org/ns/ldp#DirectContainer>; rel="type", <http://www.w3.org/ns/ldp#Resource>; rel="type" Accept-Post: text/turtle, application/ld+json Allow: POST,GET,OPTIONS,HEAD Preference-Applied: return=representation Transfer-Encoding: chunked @prefix dcterms: <http://purl.org/dc/terms/>. @prefix ldp: <http://www.w3.org/ns/ldp#>. @prefix o: <http://example.org/ontology#>. <http://example.org/netWorth/nw1/assets/> a ldp:DirectContainer; dcterms:title "The assets of JohnZSmith"; ldp:membershipResource <http://example.org/netWorth/nw1/>; ldp:hasMemberRelation o:asset; ldp:insertedContentRelation ldp:MemberSubject. <http://example.org/netWorth/nw1/> a o:NetWorth; o:asset <a1>, <a3>, <a2>.
The intent is that these link relations will be registered with IANA per [[RFC5988]] section 6.2.1.
The contents of this section were originally taken from [[POWDER]] appendix D, and then modified to comply with the current registration template.
The pre-LDP IANA link relation registry entry for
describedby
refers to a different section of [[POWDER]] that was substantively updated in
an erratum, and that section was not
actually the normative definition of the link relation. Since we expect no update to [[POWDER]] that incorporates the erratum
or fixes the registry link, this superseding registration approach is being taken.
The following Link Relationship will be submitted to IANA for review, approval, and inclusion in the IANA Link Relations registry.
describedby
A describedby B
asserts that resource B provides a description of resource A. There are no constraints on the format or representation of either A or B, neither are there any further constraints on either resource.
As with any protocol that is implemented leveraging HTTP, implementations should take advantage of the many security-related facilities associated with it and are not required to carry out LDP operations that may be in contradistinction to a particular security policy in place. For example, when faced with an unauthenticated request to replace system critical RDF statements in a graph through the PUT method, applications may consider responding with the 401 status code (Unauthorized), indicating that the appropriate authorization is required. In cases where the provided authentication fails to meet the requirements of a particular access control policy, the 403 status code (Forbidden) can be sent back to the client to indicate this failure to meet the access control policy.
The following people have been instrumental in providing thoughts, feedback, reviews, content, criticism and input in the creation of this specification:
Alexandre Bertails, Andrei Sambra, Andy Seaborne, Antonis Loizou, Arnaud Le Hors, Ashok Malhotra, Bart van Leeuwen, Cody Burleson, David Wood, Eric Prud'hommeaux, Erik Wilde, Henry Story, John Arwe, Kevin Page, Kingsley Idehen, Mark Baker, Martin P. Nally, Miel Vander Sande, Miguel Esteban Gutiérrez, Nandana Mihindukulasooriya, Olivier Berger, Pierre-Antoine Champin, Raúl García Castro, Reza B'Far, Richard Cyganiak, Rob Sanderson, Roger Menday, Ruben Verborgh, Sandro Hawke, Serena Villata, Sergio Fernandez, Steve Battle, Steve Speicher, Ted Thibodeau, Tim Berners-Lee, Yves Lafon
The change history is up to the editors to insert a brief summary of changes, ordered by most recent changes first and with heading from which public draft it has been changed from.
Summary of notable changes from the previous public working draft.