Re: Context Link Header on PUT/POST?

Hi Markus, (and all),

To return to my original question then, the consensus is that a server that
receives plain JSON without an explicit context should *reject* it
*without* looking for a profile relation in the link header of the
request?  Or at least that the JSON-LD specification does not imply that it
should or should not do that.


On Tue, Mar 10, 2015 at 1:58 PM, Markus Lanthaler <>

> On 6 Mrz 2015 at 13:40, Kingsley  Idehen wrote:
> > On 3/5/15 8:13 PM, Gregg Kellogg wrote:
> >>  From Wikipedia [1], it seems that the Link header may just be valid for
> Response objects,
> > not Request objects, but I confess that I can't really tell what Header
> fields (request or
> > response) are defined for HTTP 2.0. Were it legal, then IMO supplying a
> Link to the context
> > as part of a POST/PUT/PATCH would be reasonable, but why do it? The main
> intention of
> > the Link header is to either provide a context for a document that can't
> otherwise be
> > modified to include it inline, or when the client might not be able to
> handle anything other
> > than application/json. Obviously, in the request case, both client and
> server must be JSON-
> > LD aware, so placing it within the body makes the most sense (to me,
> anyway).
> >
> > Gregg,
> >
> > I brought this issue or "Link:" in request headers, as a basic HTTP
> > pattern, up with Mark Nottingham last year [1]. We do need to be able to
> > leverage relations as context providers in an HTTP request.
> ... but the JSON-LD spec is not the right place to define this IMO.
> --
> Markus Lanthaler
> @markuslanthaler

Rob Sanderson
Information Standards Advocate
Digital Library Systems and Services
Stanford, CA 94305

Received on Tuesday, 10 March 2015 21:19:44 UTC