-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 53
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
Required RDF serializations for Solid #45
Comments
If Clients intending to create an LDP-RS using a payload in other than Turtle and JSON-LD MUST fulfill https://www.w3.org/TR/ldp/#ldpc-post-createrdf for Servers supporting Turtle, JSON-LD and optionally other RDF serializations for LDP-RS SHOULD provide different RDF serializations based on client's proactive negotiation. For example, if a server allows the creation of an LDP-RS in |
Noting here that the WebID unofficial draft has MUST for Turtle, allows content-negotiation for other RDF serializations, and has MAY for RDFa. In that regard, the RDFa for WebID raises a slightly stronger recommendation than JSON-LD for WebID. This should also be taken into account in Authentication for both servers and clients. Also noting here a general status update: the current spec does not require notion of LDP-RS but instead uses the notion of RDF document as in https://www.w3.org/TR/rdf11-concepts/#dfn-rdf-document which includes Turtle, RDFa, JSON-LD, TriG as concrete syntaxes. Will clarify these bits in upcoming PR. |
Resolved by #196 |
The LDP specification requires read support for both
text/turtle
andapplication/ld+json
. For servers that allow write operations, support for those two formats are also required.Does Solid impose any additional requirements about the support of other RDF serializations for read and/or write operations?
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: