Introduction

This specification refines the semantics and interaction patterns of [[LDP]] in order to better serve the specific needs of those interested in implementing repositories for durable access to digital data. Additionally, this specification contains:

The goal of this specification is to define the behaviors of Fedora server implementations in order to facilitate interoperability with client applications. Although Fedora servers are not necessarily drop-in replacements for one another, a client developed against this specification should work against any Fedora server with little modification. Client applications should not expect the behaviors of every Fedora server implementation to be identical, but the interaction patterns defined in this specification should provide a sufficient mechanism to navigate the differences between Fedora server implementations.

A conforming Fedora server is a conforming [[!LDP]] 1.0 server that follows the additional rules defined in sections , , , and of this specification.

Terminology

Terminology is based on W3C's Linked Data Platform 1.0 [[!LDP]], Memento [[!RFC7089]], and Web Access Control [[!SOLIDWEBAC]].

ACL:
An Access Control List Resource is a resource providing a set of authorization statements as defined in [[!SOLIDWEBAC]] Access Control List Resources.
LDPR:
A Linked Data Platform Resource as defined in [LDP]. This may be an LDP RDF Source (LDP-RS) or an LDP Non-RDF Source (LDP-NR).
LDP-RS:
An LDPR whose state is fully represented in RDF as defined in [LDP].
LDP-NR:
An LDPR whose state is not represented in RDF as defined in [LDP].
LDPRv:
An LDPR that is simultaneously a Memento URI-R and a Memento TimeGate.
LDPRm:
An LDPR that is simultaneously a Memento URI-M.
LDPC:
A collection of linked documents or information resources as defined in [LDP].
LDPCv:
A version container: an LDPC that is simultaneously a Memento TimeMap.
LDP-contained:
The relationship binding an LDPC to LDPRs whose lifecycle it controls and is aware of as defined in [LDP].
URI-R:
A type of versioned resource defined in Memento [[RFC7089]] section 1.2.
URI-M:
A type of resource that is defined in Memento [[RFC7089]] section 1.2 as representing a version of a given URI-R.
TimeGate:
A type of resource defined in Memento [[RFC7089]] section 1.1 providing Accept-Datetime-varied negotiation of versions of an URI-R.
TimeMap:
A type of resource defined in Memento [[RFC7089]] section 1.1 that contains a machine-readable listing of URI-Ms associated to a given URI-R.

Conventions used in this document

The following namespace prefixes are used in this document:

@prefix ldp:     <http://www.w3.org/ns/ldp#> .
@prefix acl:     <https://www.w3.org/ns/auth/acl#> .

Resource Management

Non-normative note: Neither [LDP] nor this specification constrains the underlying storage model for RDF data. Each LDP-RS may be entirely independent RDF content, may be a portion of a shared RDF store, or follow some other arrangement. Implementation choices that result in failure to complete client requests are expressed in a constraints document ([[LDP]] 4.2.1.6) as noted in the appropriate sections of [LDP] and below.

General

LDP-NR creation

If, in a successful resource creation request, a Link: rel="type" request header specifies the LDP-NR interaction model (http://www.w3.org/ns/ldp#NonRDFSource, regardless of Content-Type: value), then the server SHOULD handle subsequent requests to the newly created resource as if it is an LDP-NR. ([[!LDP]] 5.2.3.4 extension)

LDP Containers

Implementations MUST support the creation and management of [[!LDP]] Containers.

LDP Containers MUST distinguish [containment triples] from [membership] and [minimal-container] triples. If an implementation cannot make this distinction, it MUST NOT permit ldp:contains as the [membership predicate] for LDP Direct and Indirect Containers or as a client-managed property, and requests that would do so MUST fail with 409 Conflict and an accompanying constraints document. Implementations that can distinguish containment triples MAY permit ldp:contains as a membership predicate or client-managed property; such implementations SHOULD support Prefer: header values allowing clients to distinguish this data in the representation of an LDP-R as defined in [[!LDP]]: http://www.w3.org/ns/ldp#PreferContainment, http://www.w3.org/ns/ldp#PreferMembership, and http://www.w3.org/ns/ldp#PreferMinimalContainer. ([[!LDP]] 5.4.1.4 expansion)

Non-normative note: [[!LDP]] defines containment relationships as binding an LDPC to LDPRs whose lifecycle it controls and is aware of, and are expressed through containment triples of the form <LDPC-URI> ldp:contains <LDPR-URI>. However, implementations that segregate containment and membership triples - for example, by storing containment relationships in a dedicated named graph - may allow the creation of other triples with the ldp:contains predicate, and thus triples with this predicate do not necessarily imply containment.

HTTP PATCH

Any LDP-RS MUST support PATCH ([[!LDP]] 4.2.7 MAY becomes MUST). [[!sparql11-update]] MUST be an accepted content-type for PATCH. Other content-types (e.g. [[ldpatch]]) MAY be available. If an otherwise valid HTTP PATCH request is received that attempts to modify resource statements that a server disallows (not ignores per [[!LDP]] 4.2.4.1), the server MUST fail the request by responding with a 4xx range status code (e.g. 409 Conflict). The server MUST provide a corresponding response body containing information about which statements could not be persisted. ([[!LDP]] 4.2.4.4 SHOULD becomes MUST). In that response, the restrictions causing such a request to fail MUST be described in a resource indicated by a Link: rel="http://www.w3.org/ns/ldp#constrainedBy" response header per [[!LDP]] 4.2.1.6. A successful PATCH request MUST respond with a 2xx status code; the specific code in the 2xx range MAY vary according to the response body or request state.

Containment Triples

The server SHOULD NOT allow HTTP PATCH to update an LDPC’s containment triples; if the server receives such a request, it SHOULD respond with a 409 (Conflict) status code.

Interaction models

The server MUST disallow a PATCH request that would change the LDP interaction model of a resource to a type that is not a subtype of the current resource type. That request MUST be rejected with a 409 Conflict response.

HTTP POST

Any LDPC (except Version Containers (LDPCv)) MUST support POST ([[!LDP]] 4.2.3 / 5.2.3). The default interaction model that will be assigned when there is no explicit Link header in the request MUST be recorded in the constraints document referenced in the Link: rel="http://www.w3.org/ns/ldp#constrainedBy" header ([[!LDP]] 4.2.1.6 clarification). Any LDPC MUST support creation of LDP-NRs on POST ([[!LDP]] 5.2.3.3 MAY becomes MUST). On creation of an LDP-NR, an implementation MUST create an associated LDP-RS describing that LDP-NR ([[!LDP]] 5.2.3.12 MAY becomes MUST).

LDP-NRs

An HTTP POST request that would create an LDP-NR and includes a Digest header (as described in [[!RFC3230]]) for which the instance-digest in that header does not match that of the new LDP-NR MUST be rejected with a 409 Conflict response.

An HTTP POST request that includes an unsupported Digest type (as described in [[!RFC3230]]), SHOULD be rejected with a 400 Bad Request response.

Non-normative note: Implementations may support Content-Type: message/external-body extensions for request bodies for HTTP POST that would create LDP-NRs. This content-type requires a complete Content-Type header that includes the location of the external body, e.g Content-Type: message/external-body; access-type=URL; URL=\"http://www.example.com/file\", as defined in [[!RFC2017]]. Requirements for this interaction are detailed in External LDP-NR Content.

HTTP PUT

When accepting a PUT request against an extant resource, an HTTP Link: rel="type" header MAY be included. If that type is a value in the LDP namespace and is not either a current type of the resource or a subtype of a current type of the resource, the request MUST be rejected with a 409 Conflict response. If the type in the Link header is a subtype of a current type of the resource, and has an interaction model assigned to it by [[!LDP]], then the resource MUST be assigned the new type and the interaction model of the resource MUST be changed to the interaction model assigned to the new type by [[!LDP]].

LDP-RSs

Any LDP-RS MUST support PUT to update statements that are not server-managed triples (as defined in [[!LDP]] 2). [[!LDP]] 4.2.4.1 and 4.2.4.3 remain in effect. If an otherwise valid HTTP PUT request is received that attempts to modify resource statements that a server disallows (not ignores per [[!LDP]] 4.2.4.1), the server MUST fail the request by responding with a 4xx range status code (e.g. 409 Conflict). The server MUST provide a corresponding response body containing information about which statements could not be persisted. ([[!LDP]] 4.2.4.4 SHOULD becomes MUST). In that response, the restrictions causing such a request to fail MUST be described in a resource indicated by a Link: rel="http://www.w3.org/ns/ldp#constrainedBy" response header per [[!LDP]] 4.2.1.6.

LDP-NRs

Any LDP-NR MUST support PUT to replace the binary content of that resource.

An HTTP PUT request that includes a Digest header (as described in [[!RFC3230]]) for which any instance-digest in that header does not match the instance it describes, MUST be rejected with a 409 Conflict response.

An HTTP PUT request that includes an unsupported Digest type (as described in [[!RFC3230]]), SHOULD be rejected with a 400 Bad Request response.

Non-normative note: Implementations may support Content-Type: message/external-body extensions for request bodies for HTTP PUT that would create LDP-NRs. This content-type requires a complete Content-Type header that includes the location of the external body, e.g Content-Type: message/external-body; access-type=URL; URL=\"http://www.example.com/file\", as defined in [[!RFC2017]]. Requirements for this interaction are detailed in External LDP-NR Content.

Creating resources with HTTP PUT

Non-normative note: An implementation may accept HTTP PUT to create resources ([[!LDP]] 4.2.4.6). Behavior regarding containment or non-containment of resources created with HTTP PUT is not defined by [[!LDP]] or this specification.

HTTP GET

When the request is to the LDP-RS created to describe an LDP-NR, the response MUST include a Link: rel="describes" header referencing the LDP-NR in question, as defined in [[!RFC6892]].

Additional values for the Prefer header

In addition to the requirements of [[!LDP]], an implementation MAY support the value http://www.w3.org/ns/oa#PreferContainedDescriptions and SHOULD support the value http://fedora.info/definitions/fcrepo#PreferInboundReferences for the Prefer header when making GET requests on LDPC resources:

  • http://www.w3.org/ns/oa#PreferContainedDescriptions: Requires a server to include representations of any contained resources in the response, as defined in [[!annotation-vocab]].
  • http://fedora.info/definitions/fcrepo#PreferInboundReferences: Requires a server to include triples from any LDP-RS housed in that server that feature the requested resource as RDF-object.

LDP-RSs

Responses to GET requests that apply a Prefer request header to any LDP-RS MUST include the Preference-Applied response header as defined in [[!RFC7240]] section 3.

LDP-NRs

GET requests to any LDP-NR MUST correctly respond to the Want-Digest header defined in [[!RFC3230]].

Non-normative note: In the presence of a Want-Digest header, the current Digest value should be calculated to enable fixity verification. Otherwise, it is expected that ETag values may be cached. Clients should use the Cache-Control: no-cache header (see [[RFC7234]] section 5.2.1.4) to instruct any intermediate caches or proxies not to return a cached response. See .

HTTP HEAD

The HEAD method is identical to GET except that the server MUST NOT return a message-body in the response, as specified in [[!RFC7231]] section 4.3.2. The server MUST send the same Digest header in the response as it would have sent if the request had been a GET (or omit it if it would have been omitted for a GET). In other cases, the server SHOULD send the same headers in response to a HEAD request as it would have sent if the request had been a GET, except that the payload headers (defined in [[!RFC7231]] section 3.3) MAY be omitted.

HTTP DELETE

The DELETE method is optional per [[!LDP]] section 4.2.5 and this specification does not require Fedora servers to implement it. When a Fedora server supports this method, in addition to the requirements imposed on LDPRs within containers outlined in [[!LDP]] section 5.2.5, it must also follow the additional behavior outlined below.

Recursive Delete

An implementation that cannot recurse SHOULD NOT advertise DELETE in response to OPTIONS requests for containers with contained resources.

Non-normative note: Clients should assume from an advertised DELETE that they do not need to look for contained/child resources to clean up.

If a server supports DELETE, any recursion MUST be reckoned along the [[!LDP]] containment relationships linking contained resources.

An implementation MUST NOT return a 200 or 204 response unless the entire operation successfully completed.

An implementation MUST NOT emit a message that implies the successful DELETE of a resource until the resource has been successfully removed.

Non-normative note: Atomicity is not guaranteed for HTTP DELETE requests that affect multiple resources.

External Binary Content

Non-normative note: Variability among client types and locations may mean that LDP-NR content is addressed in ways that are external to the Fedora server but not resolvable by all clients. This specification describes the use of Content-Type: message/external-body values to signal, on POST or PUT, that the Fedora server should not consider the request entity to be the LDP-NR's content, but that a Content-Type value will signal a name or address at which the content might be retrieved. The url and local-file access-type values motivate this specification, but a Fedora server may support any access-type parameters per the requirements for advertisement and rejection specified here.

Fedora servers SHOULD support the creation of LDP-NRs with Content-Type of message/external-body and access-type parameter of url.

Fedora servers MUST advertise support in the Accept-Post response header for each supported access-type parameter of Content-Type: message/external-body.

Fedora servers receiving requests that would create or update an LDP-NR with a message/external-body with an unsupported access-type parameter MUST respond with HTTP 415 UNSUPPORTED MEDIA TYPE. In the case that a Fedora server does not support external LDP-NR content, all message/external-body messages must be rejected with HTTP 415.

Fedora servers receiving requests that would create or update an LDP-NR with a message/external-body MUST NOT accept the request if it cannot guarantee all of the response headers required by the LDP-NR interaction model in this specification.

LDP-NR GET and HEAD responses SHOULD include a Content-Location header with a URI representation of the location of the external content if the Fedora server is proxying the content.

Non-normative note: Fedora servers may choose to support the Content-Type of message/external-body by proxying or copying the referenced content.

Per [[!RFC2046]] section 5.2.3, all Content-Type: message/external-body values MAY include an expiration parameter. Fedora servers receiving requests that would create or update an LDP-NR with a message/external-body content type SHOULD respect the expiration parameter, if present, by copying content. If the expiration parameter cannot be accommodated, the request MUST be rejected with a 4xx or 5xx status code. Following [[!LDP]] 4.2.1.6 and 4.2.4.3, 4xx responses MUST be accompanied by a Link header with http://www.w3.org/ns/ldp#constrainedBy relation.

GET and HEAD requests to any external binary content LDP-NR MUST correctly respond to the Want-Digest header defined in [[!RFC3230]].

Referenced RDF Content in Mandatory LDP Serializations

Non-normative note: This specification takes no position on the use of message/external-body to create or update LDP-RS with Turtle or JSON-LD.

Proxied Content vs. Redirected Content

Non-normative note: This specification assumes that clients interested in resolving a access-type='url' or other value without the Fedora server as an intermediary (effectively, redirection as opposed to proxying) will be able to negotiate the Content-Location response header value from a HEAD request.

Resource Versioning

Implementations MUST provide resource versioning as per [[RFC7089]] with the following additional requirements:

Versioned Resources (LDPRv)

General

A versioned resource (LDPRv) provides a TimeGate interaction model as detailed in the Memento specification [[RFC7089]]. It otherwise follows the [[!LDP]] specification, the requirements, and the additional behaviors below.

HTTP GET

Request Headers for an LDPRv

The Accept-Datetime header is used to request a past state, exactly as per [[!RFC7089]] section 2.1.1.

Response Headers

The response to a GET request on an LDPRv MUST include a Link: rel="original timegate" header referencing itself, and at least one Link: rel="timemap" header referencing an associated LDPCv. It is the presence of these headers that indicates that the resource is versioned.

The response to a GET request on an LDPRv MUST include a Vary: Accept-Datetime header, exactly as per [[!RFC7089]] section 2.1.2.

HTTP PUT

An LDPRv MAY support PUT in order to restore a previous LDPRm as the current LDPRv. The Memento-Datetime MUST be transmitted by the user agent to indicate which LDPRm to restore. The value of this header must conform to [[!RFC7089]] section 2.1.1.

HTTP HEAD

See and .

Version Resources (LDPRm)

General

When an LDPR is created with a Link: rel="type" header specifying type http://mementoweb.org/ns#OriginalResource to indicate versioning, it is created as both an LDPRv and a Memento: an LDPRm. An LDPRm MAY be deleted; however, it MUST NOT be modified once created.

HTTP DELETE

An implementation MAY support DELETE for LDPRms. If DELETE is supported, the server is responsible for all behaviors implied by the LDP-containment of the LDPRm.

HTTP GET

An implementation MUST support GET, as is the case for any LDPR. The headers for GET requests and responses on this resource MUST conform to [[!RFC7089]] section 2.1. Particularly it should be noted that the relevant TimeGate for an LDPRm is the original versioned LDPRv.

HTTP HEAD

See and .

HTTP OPTIONS

An implementation MUST support OPTIONS. A response to an OPTIONS request MUST include Allow: GET, HEAD, OPTIONS as per [[!LDP]]. An implementation MAY include Allow: DELETE if clients can remove a version from the version history, as noted above.

HTTP PATCH

An implementation MUST NOT support PATCH for LDPRms.

HTTP POST

An implementation MUST NOT support POST for LDPRms.

HTTP PUT

An implementation MUST NOT support PUT for LDPRms.

Version Containers (LDPCv)

General

When an LDPR is created with a Link: rel="type" header specifying type http://mementoweb.org/ns#OriginalResource to indicate versioning, a version container (LDPCv) MUST be created that contains Memento-identified resources (LDPRm) capturing time-varying representations of the associated LDPR. An LDPCv is both a TimeMap per Memento [[!RFC7089]] and an LDPC. As a TimeMap an LDPCv MUST conform to the specification for such resources in [[!RFC7089]]. An implementation MUST indicate TimeMap in the same way it indicates the Container interaction model of the resource via HTTP headers. An LDPCv MUST respond to GET Accept: application/link-format as indicated in [[!RFC7089]] section 5 and specified in [[!RFC6690]] section 7.3.

An implementation MUST NOT allow the creation of an LDPCv that is LDP-contained by its associated LDPRv.

Non-normative note: The application/link-format representation of an LDPCv is not required to include all statements in the LDPCv graph, only those required by TimeMap behaviors.

HTTP DELETE

An implementation MAY support DELETE. An implementation that does support DELETE SHOULD do so by both removing the LDPCv and removing the versioning interaction model from the original LDPRv.

HTTP OPTIONS

An implementation MUST Allow: GET, HEAD, OPTIONS as per [[!LDP]]. An implementation MAY Allow: DELETE if the versioning behavior is removable by deleting the LDPCv. See for requirements on DELETE if supported.

An implementation MAY Allow: PATCH if the LDPCv has mutable properties. See for requirements on PATCH if supported.

An implementation MAY Allow: POST if versions can be explicitly minted by a client. See for requirements on POST if supported.

HTTP POST

If an LDPCv supports POST, a POST that does not contain a Memento-Datetime header SHOULD be understood to create a new LDPRm contained by the LDPCv, reflecting the state of the LDPRv at the time of the POST.

If an LDPCv supports POST, a POST with a Memento-Datetime header SHOULD be understood to create a new LDPRm contained by the LDPCv, reflecting the state of the request body at the time of the Memento-Datetime request header.

If an implementation does not support POST with a request body, the Accept-Post header of any response from the LDPCv SHOULD indicate that no request body is accepted via the form Accept-Post: */*; q=0.0, and that implementation MUST respond to any body-containing POST to that LDPCv with a 415 response and a link to an appropriate constraints document (see LDP 4.2.1.6). As per [[!LDP]], any resource created via POST, in this case an LDPRm) SHOULD be advertised in the response's Location header.

Non-normative note: If an LDPCv does not Allow: POST, the constraints document indicated in Link: rel="http://www.w3.org/ns/ldp#constrainedBy" for that LDPCv should describe the versioning mechanism (e.g. by PUT or PATCH to the LDPRv described by that LDPCv). Disallowing POST suggests that the [[!LDP]] server will manage all LDPRm creation; see Server-Managed Version Creation.

Vary

Non-normative note: When a POST to an LDPCv, or a PUT or PATCH to an LDPRv creates a new LDPRm, the response indicates this by using a Vary header as appropriate. When an LDPCv supports POST, and allows clients to specify a datetime for created URI-Ms, Vary-Post/Vary-Put: Memento-Datetime.

Implementation Patterns

Non-normative note: This section describes the way the normative specification might be applied to implement discoverable versioning patterns. If an implementation of an LDPCv does not support POST to mint versions, that must be advertised via OPTIONS as described above. This allows a client to perform an OPTIONS request on a LDPCv to determine if it can explicitly mint versions. If the LDPCv does not support POST, the client should assume some other mechanism is used to mint versions, for example, the implementation may automatically mint versions instead, but that is outside the requirements of this specification. This document specifies normatively only how LDPCvs and LDPRms can be discovered, and how they should act.

Server-Managed Version Creation

Non-normative note: Upon PUT or PATCH to the LDPRv, a new LDPRm is created in an appropriate LDPCv. This LDPRm is the version of the original LDPRv that was just created.

Client-Managed Version Creation

Non-normative note: An LDPRm for a particular LDPRv is created on POST to any LDPCv associated with that LDPRv. The new LDPRm is contained in the LDPCv to which the POST was made and features in that LDPCv-as-a-TimeMap. This pattern is more open to manipulation and could be useful for migration from other systems into Fedora implementations. Responses from requests to the LDPRv include a Link: rel="timemap" to the same LDPCv as per [[!RFC7089]] section 5.

Resource Authorization

To configure access control restrictions, implementations MUST follow the recommendations of Web Access Control [[!SOLIDWEBAC]] with the following additional requirements:

ACLs are LDP RDF Sources

An ACL for a controlled resource on a conforming server MUST itself be an LDP-RS.

Cross-Domain ACLs

Non-normative note: Implementation of support for ACLs requires retrieval of one or more ACL resources. Security implications should be considered if remote ACLs are supported.

Implementations MAY restrict support for ACLs to local resources. If an implementation chooses to reject requests concerning remote ACLs, it MUST respond with a 4xx range status code and MUST advertise the restriction with a Link: rel="http://www.w3.org/ns/ldp#constrainedBy" response header.

Append Mode

The [[!SOLIDWEBAC]] Modes of Access section mentions the acl:mode value acl:Append. In the context of a Fedora implementation, acl:Append should be understood as operations that only append, such as POSTing to a container, or performing a PATCH that only adds triples.

LDP-RS

When a client is allowed to perform acl:Append operations on an LDP-RS:

  • A DELETE request MUST be denied
  • A PATCH request that deletes triples MUST be denied
  • A PATCH request that only adds triples SHOULD be allowed
  • A PUT request on an existing resource MUST be denied
  • A PUT request to create a new resource MUST be allowed if the implementation supports creating resources using PUT (see: )

LDPC

In addition to requirements in , when a client is allowed to perform acl:Append operations on an LDPC, a POST request MUST be allowed.

LDP-NR

When a client is allowed to perform acl:Append operations on an LDP-NR:

  • All DELETE, POST, and PUT requests MUST be denied
  • A PATCH request that deletes or modifies existing content MUST be denied
  • A PATCH request that only adds content SHOULD be allowed

Inheritance and Default ACLs

Inheritance of ACLs in Fedora implementations is defined by the [[!SOLIDWEBAC]] ACL Inheritance Algorithm and MUST be reckoned along the [[!LDP]] containment relationships linking controlled resources, with the following modification: In the case that the controlled resource is uncontained and has no ACL, or that there is no ACL at any point in the containment hierarchy of the controlled resource, then the server MUST supply a default ACL. The default ACL resource SHOULD be located in the same server as the controlled resource.

Non-normative note: The predicate acl:default in the [[WEBAC]] vocabulary indicates authorizations that should be inherited. The [[SOLIDWEBAC]] v.0.4.0 documentation is being updated to use this in place of the obsolete predicate acl:defaultForNew.

Cross-Domain Group Listings

Non-normative note: Implementation of support for [[!SOLIDWEBAC]] groups of agents requires retrieval of one or more Group Listing documents. Security implications should be considered if remote Group Listing documents are supported.

Implementations MAY restrict support for [[!SOLIDWEBAC]] groups of agents to local Group Listing documents. If an implementation chooses to reject requests concerning remote Group Listings, it MUST respond with a 4xx range status code and MUST advertise the restriction with a Link: rel="http://www.w3.org/ns/ldp#constrainedBy" response header.

WebIDs

Non-normative note: The [[!SOLIDWEBAC]] overview mentions parenthetically that user and group identifiers should be WebIDs. For the purposes of performing authorization, the essential requirements are:

  • User and group identifiers must be IRIs.
  • Group IRIs must be dereferencable as RDF, and must link to member IRIs using the vcard:hasMember predicate.

Notifications

Introduction

Non-normative note: This section defines when notifications are made available by a Fedora implementation, the minimal set of data contained in these notifications, and how the data are serialized. Notifications may be emitted synchronously or asynchronously with the API operations that cause them to be emitted. These notifications are typically used to support external integrations. The structure of these notifications draws upon the existing [[activitystreams-core]] and [[ldn]] specifications. An implementation is free to choose from any transport technology so long as the notifications conform to what is described in the following sections.

Implementers should be aware that some operations cause multiple resources to change. In these cases, there will be a corresponding notification describing each of the changes. This is especially true for changes to containment or membership triples. This is also true if a DELETE operation triggers changes in any contained resources.

Consumers of these notifications should not expect a strict ordering of the events reported therein: the fact that a notification for Event A is received before a notification for Event B should not imply that Event A occurred before Event B. Implementations may choose to make further guarantees about ordering.

According to the [[activitystreams-core]] specification, it is possible to collect multiple events into a single notification. This specification makes no restriction on the use of activity stream collections.

Notification Events

For every resource whose state is changed as a result of an HTTP operation, there MUST be a corresponding notification made available describing that change.

Notification Serialization

The notification serialization MUST conform to the [[!activitystreams-core]] specification.

Wherever possible, data SHOULD be expressed using the [[!activitystreams-vocabulary]].

Each event described by a notification MUST contain:

Each event described by a notification SHOULD contain:

Notifications SHOULD NOT contain the entire content of repository resources.

Examples

A minimal notification

{
  "@context": "https://www.w3.org/ns/activitystreams",
  "id": "urn:uuid:3c834a8f-5638-4412-aa4b-35ea80416a18",
  "type": "Create",
  "name": "Resource Creation",
  "actor": "http://example.org/agent/fedoraAdmin",
  "object": {
    "id": "http://example.org/fcrepo/rest/resource/path",
    "type": [
      "ldp:Container",
      "ldp:RDFSource"
    ]
  }
}
            

A basic notification with some additional detail

{
  "@context": [
    "https://www.w3.org/ns/activitystreams",
    {
      "isPartOf": {
        "@id": "http://purl.org/dc/terms/isPartOf",
        "@type": "@id"
      }
    }
  ],
  "id": "urn:uuid:be29ae69-2134-f1b0-34be-2f91b6d1f029",
  "type": "Update",
  "name": "Resource Modification",
  "published": "2016-07-04T13:46:39Z",
  "inbox": "http://example.org/ldn/inbox/path",
  "actor": [
    {
      "id": "#actor0",
      "type": "Person",
      "name": "fedo raAdmin"
    },
    {
      "id": "#actor1",
      "type": "Service",
      "name": "APIX-core/0.1"
    }
  ],
  "object": {
    "id": "http://example.org/fcrepo/rest/resource/path",
    "updated": "2016-07-04T13:44:39Z",
    "type": [
      "ldp:Container",
      "ldp:RDFSource",
      "http://example.org/type/CustomType"
    ],
    "isPartOf": "http://example.org/fcrepo/rest/"
  }
}
            

Binary Resource Fixity

What is fixity?

Non-normative note: For the purposes of the following specification, a fixity result is an extract or summary of some LDP-NR made according to some explicit procedure. Fixity results are taken for the purpose of comparing different fixity results for the same resource over time, to ensure a continuity of that resource's identity according to the particular procedure used. Examples might include:

This specification describes two fixity verification mechanisms: firstly, as part of content transmission, to guard against faults in transmission, and secondly, by comparison to a known or proffered digest value, to monitor for faults in persistence.

Transmission Fixity

Non-normative note: Transmission fixity may be verified by including a Digest header (defined in [[RFC3230]]) in POST and PUT requests for LDP-NRs.

Persistence Fixity

Non-normative note: A client may retrieve the checksum of an LDP-NR by performing a HEAD or GET request on it with the Want-Digest header (using a HEAD request allows the client to avoid transferring the entire content when only the checksum is needed). The Digest header in the response can be used to infer persistence fixity by comparing it to previously-computed values.

Privacy Considerations

Fedora implementations are subject to the same privacy considerations that are found in the following specifications:

Security Considerations

There are security considerations for any HTTP server exposed to the Internet. Implementations SHOULD make use of the many security-related features of HTTP, including use of the authentication framework defined in the Authentication chapter of the HTTP/1.1 specification [[!RFC7235]].

Fedora implementations are subject to the same security considerations that are found in the following specifications:

Acknowledgments