This document:Public document·View comments·Disposition of Comments·
Nearby:Linked Data Platform (LDP) Working Group Other specs in this tool
Quick access to LC-2914 LC-2915 LC-2923 LC-2924 LC-2925 LC-2926 LC-2927 LC-2928 LC-2929 LC-2930 LC-2931 LC-2932 LC-2933 LC-2934 LC-2935 LC-2936
Previous: LC-2936 Next: LC-2925
Hi, More than one year has passed since Pierre-Antoine Champin explained why specifying LDP using the concept of "null relative URI" is problematic [1]. Unfortunately the concept of "null relative URI" is still in the latest version of the spec. This ties the LDP spec to some RDF serializations and probably violates RFC3986 according to which the *sender* is responsible for making sure that a base URI for the relative references can be established. But the main point that LDP is no longer defined in terms of the abstract RDF syntax shows to be problematic when using higher level abstraction frameworks such as JAX-RS (the java standard for REST) to implement and LDP server or client. A method that returns an RDF representation of a Resource would typically be defined like this: @GET public Graph getResourceDescription(); The JAX-RS runtime (more specifically so called MessageBodyWriters) will take care of serializing the returned graph into the format preferred by the client. One would define a method that handles post requests with an RDF Graph as message body like this: @POST public Response postResourceDescritption(Graph graph); Unfortunately this doesn't work to handle LDP POST requests as the message body cannot be converted to an RDF Graph until some application logic defined the URI for the new resource. All work around are quite horrible. One would be to have a type RelativeGraph to which text/turtle can be deserialized without a base URI, another one would be to take a String as argument and take care of the deserialization in the application code. Pierre-Antoine original solution proposal included the usage of BNodes. As some people have strong feelings against BNodes this elegant approach might have been precociously discarded by some. A quick fix would be to simply define "null relative URI" (which is currently undefined both in LDP as well as in RFC 3986/3987) as http://www.w3.org/ns/ldp/null-relative/. Cheers, Reto 1. http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-ldp-wg/2013Mar/0077.html