W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-linked-json@w3.org > November 2011

Re: HTTP POST and @subject IRI

From: Dave Longley <dlongley@digitalbazaar.com>
Date: Mon, 07 Nov 2011 00:58:03 -0500
Message-ID: <4EB7736B.4080501@digitalbazaar.com>
To: public-linked-json@w3.org
On 11/06/2011 09:20 PM, Markus Lanthaler wrote:
>> The service is responsible for how it interprets its input; it could
>> very well be expecting to receive a blank node and then provide it with
>> a global identifier. In fact, this is likely how a service that assigns
>> global names (IRIs) to blank nodes would work.
> I agree that the service is responsible for how it interprets its inputs,
> but how do you distinguish between a blank node that should remain a blank
> node and a blank node that should be converted to an IRI?

You don't. The service that was described creates a new resource with 
the content you posted at a URL of the server's choosing when you post 
to it. So it doesn't matter what you put in the @subject field, really. 
The server will decide what goes there. It just seemed to me that 
omitting it entirely made the most sense (or may for a lot of use cases).

>> If the service is unable to alter the input before it is stored for
>> later retrieval, then I can see using the other solution (@subject: ""),
>> but this actually seems a lot messier to me. I would prefer to retrieve
>> an object with a fully-populated @subject, and not have to rely on
>> storing information about where I retrieved it in some separate state
>> container.
> Gregg's suggestion doesn't necessarily implies that the JSON-LD document
> stays exactly the same, it just implies that the information contained in it
> stays the same. By using a relative IRI in a POST you are able to express
> that it's up to the server to create an absolute IRI. Of course the server
> is free to rewrite the JSON-LD document to contain the absolute IRI when
> retrieved later.

I don't see how this is any different from the blank node case. By 
omitting a @subject, that can inform the server that it is free to 
rewrite the JSON-LD document to contain the absolute IRI of the location 
where it chooses to store the resource. It seems to me that either 
solution is reasonable.

Dave Longley
Digital Bazaar, Inc.
Received on Monday, 7 November 2011 05:58:27 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 20:53:18 UTC