In the W3C WoT Thing Description specification (https://w3c.github.io/wot-thing-description/#td-vocab-forms--InteractionAffordance), it says that interactions have a forms array that can contain different forms with different op keywords. Why are those op keywords required though?
Related
I have spent a lot of time trying to figure out what OpenAPI Links can be used for and how they relate to hypermedia links in the body of a response & it's doing my head in!
Lets say the simple class model below represents the business domain for which we have defined an OpenAPI spec that provides paths to navigate the instances of the various classes.
For example, if I perform a get of /borrowers/{id}, I would expect the response to contain both the properties of Borrower and a means to follow R1 or R2 to get the relevant set of Book instances.
Before OpenAPI 3 I would have constructed links to the relevant paths e.g.
/borrowers/{id}/loaned-books or /borrowers/{id}/reserved-books and included those as properties (hyperlinks) in the definition of the response body.
At runtime, if I followed those hyperlinks I would get an array of the relevant Books each of which had other hyperlinks.
So the OpenAPI Link questions are:
Are they a replacement for the need to generate hyperlinks in the response? I don't think so but in which case
What is the Runtime Expression Language (REL) for?
Are they just a means of defining hyperlinks in the API spec? Possibly but in which case does the response body definition still need to include properties for those links? Presumably their values still need to have the actual hyperlinks created on the server?
Given that the REL doesn't allow wildcards how do you define links when the response is an array of resources, each of which has an id to be used by the next operation?
Any help explaining links would be gratefully received.
I'm reading the book, HTTP - The Definitive Guide, from which I get the URL general format:
<scheme>://<user>:<password>#<host>:<port>/<path>;<params>?<query>#<frag>
The <params> part said,
The path component for HTTP URLs can be broken into path segments. Each segment can have its own params. For example:
http://www.joes-hardware.com/hammers;sale=false/index.html;graphics=true
In my opinion, path params can also be used to query resources like query strings, but why it's barely seen?
And I'm a Rails developer, and I haven't seen its usage or specification in Rails. Does Rails not support it?
You ask several questions
Why do we not see ;params=value much?
Because query parameters using ?=& are widely supported, like in PHP, .net, ruby etc.. with convenient functions like $_GET[].
While params delimited by ; or , do not have these convenient helper functions. You do encounter them at Rest api's, where they are used in the htaccess or the controller to get relevant parameters.
Does Ruby support params delimited with ;?
Once you obtain the current url, you can get all parameters with a simple regex call. This is also why they are used in htaccess files, because they are easily regexed (is that a word?).
Both parameter passing structures are valid and can be used, the only clear reason why one is used more often than the other is because of preference and support in the different languages.
I have to parse through xml which contain URI links to dbpedia.org. I have to extract rdf triples from those URI based on a given Ontology using Jena library. How do I resolve the Prefix programmatically in Java based on the ontology given.
The given ontology says that triples can be extracted by querying dbpedia.org. For all such triples the corresponding dbpedia resource is available to start writing the query. But the problem is how do I write the query with only its resource available. I have the properties to query. But I don't have the PREFIX for those properties
Although this may not answer the question directly, I had a whole load of URIs, some prefixed some not and I wanted them all unprefixed (i.e. written out in full with their prefixes resolved). Searching Google the most useful thing I came across was this question (first) and the JavaDoc so I thought I'd add my experience to this question to help anyone else who might be searching for the same thing.
Jena's PrefixMap interface (which Model implements) has expandPrefix and qnameFor methods. The expandPrefix method is the one which helped me (qnameFor does the reverse i.e. it applies a prefix from a PrefixMap to a string and returns null if no such mapping can be found).
Hence for any resource, to ensure that you have a fully expanded URI you can do
myRes.getModel().expandPrefix(myRes.getURI());
Hope this helps someone.
Your question is not very clear, so if this answer doesn't address your issue please edit your question to say more clearly what your problem is. However, based on what you've asked, once you've read an RDF file into a Jena model, in XML or any other encoding, the prefixes used are available through the methods in the interface com.hp.hpl.jena.shared.PrefixMapping (see javadoc). A Model object implements that interface. To automatically expand prefix "foo", use the method getNsPrefixURI().
Edit
OK, given your revised question, there's a number of things you can do to turn a simple property name into a property URI that you can use in a SPARQL query:
use the prefix.cc service to look at possible expansions of prefixes and prefix names (e.g. if you are given dbpedia:elevation, you can look it up on prefix.cc (i.e: http://prefix.cc/dbpedia:elevation) to see that one of the possible expansions is http://dbpedia.org/ontology/elevation
issue a SPARQL describe query on the resource URI to see which properties are returned in the RDF description, then match those to the un-prefixed property names you've been given
ask your data provider to give you full property names, or otherwise provide the prefix expansions, in order to save you from having to reverse engineer which properties he or she meant in the first place.
Personally I'd advocate the third option if that's at all possible.
Is a url like http://example.com/foo?bar valid?
I'm looking for a link to something official that says one way or the other. A simple yes/no answer or anecdotal evidence won't cut it.
Valid to the URI RFC
Likely acceptable to your server-side framework/code
The URI RFC doesn't mandate a format for the query string. Although it is recognized that the query string will often carry name-value pairs, it is not required to (e.g. it will often contain another URI).
3.4. Query
The query component contains non-hierarchical data that, along with
data in the path component (Section 3.3), serves to identify a
resource within the scope of the URI's scheme and naming authority
(if any). ...
... However, as query components
are often used to carry identifying information in the form of
"key=value" pairs and one frequently used value is a reference to
another URI, ...
HTML establishes that a form submitted via HTTP GET should encode the form values as name-value pairs in the form "?key1=value1&key2=value2..." (properly encoded). Parsing of the query string is up to the server-side code (e.g. Java servlet engine).
You don't identify what server-side framework you use, if any, but it is possible that your server-side framework may assume the query string will always be in name-value pairs and it may choke on a query string that is not in that format (e.g. ?bar). If its your own custom code parsing the query string, you simply have to ensure you handle that query string format. If its a framework, you'll need to consult your documentation or simply test it to see how it is handled.
They're perfectly valid. You could consider them to be the equivalent of the big muscled guy standing silently behind the mob messenger. The guy doesn't have a name and doesn't speak, but his mere presence conveys information.
"The "http" scheme is used to locate network resources via the HTTP protocol. This section defines the scheme-specific syntax and semantics for http URLs." http://www.w3.org/Protocols/rfc2616/rfc2616.html
http_URL = "http:" "//" host [ ":" port ] [ abs_path [ "?" query ]]
So yes, anything is valid after a question mark. Your server may interpret differently, but anecdotally, you can see some languages treat that as a boolean value which is true if listed.
Yes, it is valid.
If one simply want to check if the parameter exists or not, this is one way to do so.
URI Spec
The only relevant part of the URI spec is to know everything between the first ? and the first # fits the spec's definition of a query. It can include any characters such as [:/.?]. This means that a query string such as ?bar, or ?ten+green+apples is valid.
Find the RFC 3986 here
HTML Spec
isindex is not meaningfully HTML5.
It's provided deprecated for use as the first element in a form only, and submits without a name.
If the entry's name is "isindex", its type is "text", and this is the first entry in the form data set, then append the value to result and skip the rest of the substeps for this entry, moving on to the next entry, if any, or the next step in the overall algorithm otherwise.
The isindex flag is for legacy use only. Forms in conforming HTML documents will not generate payloads that need to be decoded with this flag set.
The last time isindex was supported was HTML3. It's use in HTML5 is to provide easier backwards compatibility.
Support in libraries
Support in libraries for this format of URI varies however some libraries do provide legacy support to ease use of isindex.
Perl URI.pm (special support)
Some libraries like Perl's URI provide methods of parsing these kind of structures
$uri->query_keywords
$uri->query_keywords( $keywords, ... )
$uri->query_keywords( \#keywords )
Sets and returns query components that use the keywords separated by "+" format.
Node.js url (no special support)
As another far more frequent example, node.js takes the normal route and eases parsing as either
A string
or, an object of keys and values (using parseQueryString)
Most other URI-parsing APIs following something similar to this.
PHP parse_url, follows as similar implementation but only returns the string for the query. Parsing into an object of k=>v requires parse_string()
It is valid: see Wikipedia, RFC 1738 (3.3. HTTP), RFC 3986 (3. Syntax Components).
isindex deprecated magic name from HTML5
This deprecated feature allows a form submission to generate such an URL, providing further evidence that it is valid for HTML. E.g.:
<form action="#isindex" class="border" id="isindex" method="get">
<input type="text" name="isindex" value="bar"/>
<button type="submit">Submit</button>
</form>
generates an URL of type:
?bar
Standard: https://www.w3.org/TR/html5/forms.html#naming-form-controls:-the-name-attribute
isindex is however deprecated as mentioned at: https://stackoverflow.com/a/41689431/895245
As all other answers described, it's perfectly valid for checking, specially for boolean kind stuff
Here is a simple function to get the query string by name:
function getParameterByName(name, url) {
if (!url) {
url = window.location.href;
}
name = name.replace(/[\[\]]/g, "\\$&");
var regex = new RegExp("[?&]" + name + "(=([^&#]*)|&|#|$)"),
results = regex.exec(url);
if (!results) return null;
if (!results[2]) return '';
return decodeURIComponent(results[2].replace(/\+/g, " "));
}
and now you want to check if the query string you are looking for exists or not, you may do a simple thing like:
var exampleQueryString = (getParameterByName('exampleQueryString') != null);
the exampleQueryString will be false if the function can't find the query string, otherwise will be true.
The correct resource to look for this is RFC6570. Please refer to section 3.2.9 where in examples empty parameter is presented as below.
Example Template Expansion
{&x,y,empty} &x=1024&y=768&empty=
Suppose you are working on an API, and you want nice URLs. For example, you want to provide the ability to query articles based on author, perhaps with sorting.
Standard:
GET http://example.com/articles.php?author=5&sort=desc
I imagine a RESTful way of doing this might be:
GET http://example.com/articles/all/author/5/sort/desc
Am I correct? Or have I got this REST thing all wrong?
I'm afraid your question really misses the point of REST. From a purely theoretical perspective there is absolutely no advantage or disadvantage to either of those urls from a REST perspective. In practice, those urls may behave differently with different caches, and certainly server frameworks are going to parse them differently. Despite what you hear from the framework developers, there is no such thing as a RESTful URL.
From the perspective of REST those two URLs are simply identifiers that can be dereferenced. If you want to start building REST apis that will benefit from the characteristics described in the dissertation, you need to start thinking in terms of content that is returned when you dereference the URL and how that content is linked together using URLs embedded in the content.
I realize this does not help you much in trying to resolve what you consider to be your problem. What I can tell you is that one of the major intents of REST is to allow your URLs to be completely under the control of the server and can change without impacting your client applications. Therefore, my recommendation is to pick whatever url structure works most easily with the framework you are using to serve the resource representations. Certainly do not look to the REST dissertation to tell you what is the right and wrong way of formatting your URLs and anyone who tells you that your URLs are not RESTful is confused. Probably what they are telling you is the server framework, they are used to using for creating RESTful interfaces, requires URLs to be structured this way.
It's not what your URI looks like that matters, it is what you do with it that matters.
Using a query string is not more or less RESTful than using path components. The URI Generic Syntax (RFC 3986, January 2005) defines that they're just as important in identifying the resource. So yes, as others point out, it's not important to REST. (Note that in the obsoleted-by-RFC-3986 RFC 2396, the query string was not defined to be identifying the resource, but rather a string of information to be interpreted by the resource.)
However, URI design is important, because as an owner of a URI namespace (i.e. the holder of the domain name where the URIs will live) you want the URIs to be long lived. As wise men have stated earlier: Cool URIs don't change!
The choice of using query strings vs path components depends on how your resources are identified, and how they will be identified in years to come. If there's a hierarchy that stands out, then it might be that this should be reflected in the URI, at least if that hierarchy is relatively permanent, and that things don't move around all the time.
It's also important to note that the actual URIs are only meaningful to two parties:
Servers, who need to forge and parse URIs
Human beings who might see a URI in passing might learn things from the URI.
By contrast, client applications are usually not allowed to do URI introspection. So your choice of query strings vs path components boils down to what you think you can live with ten (or 100) years from now.
You are mostly right. The thing with REST api's is to focus on the nouns.
What does the noun all do in this case? Wouldn't you expect your API to always return all articles, unless you filter it?
I would make sort a query string parameters, further, I would make any and all filtering query string parameters. If you look at how Stack is implemented when you click on the "Newest" questions link, you get a query string to filter the questions.
So perhaps something like:
GET http://example.com/aritcles/authors/5?sort=desc
But also think about what happens with each URL:
GET http://example.com/aritcles/ might return all current articles
GET http://example.com/aritcles/authors/ What does this url do? does it return all authors of all articles, or does it return all the articles for all authors (which is essentially the same functionality of the URL above.)
GET http://example.com/aritcles/authors/5/ might return all articles by author 5, or does it return author 5's information?
I would maybe change it to:
http://example.com/aritcles returns all articles
http://example.com/aritcles/5 returns all articles from author 5
http://example.com/authors returns all authors
http://example.com/authors/5 returns information for author 5
Alan is mostly right but his URLs are misleading. I believe the correct routes / urls should reflect the following behavior:
[GET] http://domain.com/articles #=> returns all articles (index action)
[GET] http://domain.com/articles/5 #=> returns article ID 5 (show action)
[GET] http://domain.com/authors/#=> returns all authors (index action)
[GET] http://domain.com/authors/5 #=> returns author ID 5 (show action)
[GET] http://domain.com/authors/5/articles OR http://domain.com/articles/authors/5 #=> depending on the hierarchy of your routes (both belong to the index action)
Best regards,
DBA