RE: HTTP POST and @subject IRI

> 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?

> 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.

Markus Lanthaler

Received on Monday, 7 November 2011 02:21:11 UTC