3. User Stories
3.1 Maintaining Social Contact Information
Many of us have multiple email accounts that include
information about the people and organizations we interact with –
names, email addresses, telephone numbers, instant messenger
identities and so on. When someone’s email address or telephone
number changes (or they acquire a new one), our lives would be
much simpler if we could update that information in one spot and
all copies of it would automatically be updated. In other words,
those copies would all be linked to some definition of “the
contact.” There might also be good reasons (like off-line email
addressing) to maintain a local copy of the contact, but ideally
any copies would still be linked to some central “master.”
Agreeing on a format for “the contact” is not enough,
however. Even if all our email providers agreed on the format of a
contact, we would still need to use each provider’s custom
interface to update or replace the provider’s copy, or we would
have to agree on a way for each email provider to link to the
“master”. If we look outside our own personal interests, it would
be even more useful if the person or organization exposed their
own contact information so we could link to it.
What would work in either case is a common understanding of the
resource, a few formats needed, and access guidance for these
resources. This would support how to acquire a link to a contact,
how to use those links to interact with a contact (including reading,
updating,
and deleting
it), as well as how to easily create a
new contact, add it to my contacts, and when deleting a
contact, how it would be removed from my list of contacts. It
would also be good to be able to add some application-specific
data about my contacts that the original design didn’t consider.
Ideally we’d like to eliminate multiple copies of contacts, there
would be additional valuable information about my contacts that
may be stored on separate servers and need a simple way to link
this information back to the contacts. Regardless of whether a
contact collection is my own, shared by an organization, or all
contacts known to an email provider (or to a single email account
at an email provider), it would be nice if they all worked pretty
much the same way.
3.2 Keeping Track of Personal and Business Relationships
In our daily lives, we deal with many different
organizations in many different relationships, and they each have
data about us. However, it is unlikely that any one organization
has all the information about us. Each of them typically gives us
access to the information (at least some of it), many through
websites where we are uniquely identified by some string – an
account number, user ID, and so on. We have to use their
applications to interact with the data about us, and we
have to use their identifier(s) for us.
Would it not be simpler if at least the Web-addressable portion of
that data could be linked to consistently, so that instead of
maintaining various identifiers in different formats and instead
of having to manually supply those identifiers to each one’s
corresponding custom application, we could essentially build a set
of bookmarks to it all? When we want to examine
or change
their contents, would it not be simpler if there were a single
consistent application interface that they all supported?
The information held by any single organization might be a mix of
simple data and collections
of other data, for example, a bank account balance and a
collection of historical transactions. Our bank might easily have
a collection of accounts for each member of its collection
of customers.
3.4 Library Linked Data
The W3C Library Linked Data Working Group has a number of use
cases cited in their Use Case Report [LLD-UC]. These referenced use cases focus on the
need to extract and correlate library data from disparate sources.
Variants of these use cases that can provide consistent formats,
as well as ways to improve or update the data, would enable
simplified methods for both efficiently sharing this data as well
as producing incremental updates without the need for repeated
full extractions and import of data.
The 'Digital Objects Cluster' contains a number of relevant
use cases:
- Grouping: This should "Allow the end-users to define groups of resources
on the web that for some reason belong together. The relationship
that exists between the resources is often left unspecified. Some
of the resources in a group may not be under control of the
institution that defines the groups."
- Re-use: "Users should have the capability to re-use all
or parts of a collection, with all or part of its metadata,
elsewhere on the linked Web."
The 'Collections' cluster also contains a number of relevant
use cases:
- Collections discovery: "Enable innovative collection
discovery such as identification of nearest location of a
physical collection where a specific information resource is
found or mobile device applications ... based on collection-level
descriptions."
- Community information services: Identify and classify
collections of special interest to the community.
3.5 Municipality Operational Monitoring
Across various cities, towns, counties, and various municipalities
there is a growing number of services managed and run by
municipalities that produce and consume a vast amount of
information. This information is used to help monitor services,
predict problems, and handle logistics. In order to effectively
and efficiently collect, produce, and analyze all this data, a
fundamental set of loosely coupled standard data sources are
needed. A simple, low-cost way to expose
data from the diverse set of monitored services is needed, one
that can easily integrate into the municipalities of other systems
that inspect and analyze the data. All these services have links
and dependencies on other data and services, so having a simple
and scalable linking model is key.
3.6 Healthcare
For physicians to analyze, diagnose, and propose treatment
for patients requires a vast amount of complex, changing and
growing knowledge. This knowledge needs to come from a number of
sources, including physicians’ own subject knowledge, consultation
with their network of other healthcare professionals, public
health sources, food and drug regulators, and other repositories
of medical research and recommendations.
To diagnose a patient’s condition requires current data on
the patient’s medications and medical history. In addition, recent
pharmaceutical advisories about these medications are linked into
the patient’s data. If the patient experiences adverse effects
from medications, these physicians need to publish information
about this to an appropriate regulatory source. Other medical
professionals require access to both validated and emerging
effects of the medication. Similarly, if there are geographical
patterns around outbreaks that allow both the awareness of new
symptoms and treatments, this information needs to quickly reach a
very distributed and diverse set of medical information systems.
Also, reporting back to these regulatory agencies regarding new
occurrences of an outbreak, including additional details of
symptoms and causes, is critical in producing the most effective
treatment for future incidents.
3.8 Aggregation and Mashups of Infrastructure Data
For infrastructure management (such as storage systems, virtual
machine environments, and similar IaaS and PaaS concepts), it is
important to provide an environment in which information from
different sources can be aggregated, filtered,
and visualized effectively. Specifically, the following use cases
need to be taken into account:
- While some data sources are based on Linked Data, others
are not, and aggregation and mashups must work across these
different sources.
- Consumers of the data sources and aggregated/filtered
data streams are not necessarily implementing Linked Data
themselves, they may be off-the-shelf components such as
dashboard frameworks for composing visualizations.
- Simple versions of this scenario are pull-based, where
the data is requested from data sources. In more advanced
settings, without a major change in architecture it should be
possible to move to a push-based interaction model, where data
sources push notifications to subscribers, and data sources
provide different services that consumers can subscribe to (such
as "informational messages" or "critical alerts only").
In this scenario, the important factors are to have
abstractions that allow easy aggregation and filtering, are
independent from the internal data model of the sources that are
being combined, and can be used for pull-based interactions as
well as for push-based interactions.
3.9 Sharing Payload of RDF Data Among Low-End Devices
Several projects around the idea of downscaling the Semantic Web need to be able to ship payloads of RDF across
the nodes member of a given network. The transfers are done in a
constrained context in terms of bandwidth, scope of the local
semantics employed by the nodes and computing capabilities of the
nodes. In a P2P style, every node has the capability to act either
as a data consumer or a data provider, serving its own data or
acting as a relay to pass other's data along (typically in mesh
networks).
The transfer of an arbitrary payload of RDF data could be
implemented through a container mechanism, adding and removing
sets of RDF triples to it. Currently, the
SemanticXO [XO] project uses named graphs and the graph store protocol to
create/delete/copy graphs across the nodes but this (almost)
imposes the usage of a triple store. Unfortunately, triple stores
are rather demanding pieces of software that are not always usable
on limited hardware. Some generic REST-like interaction backed up
with a lightweight column store would be a better approach.
3.11 Data Catalogs
The Asset Description Metadata Schema [ADMS]
provides the data model to describe semantic asset repository
contents, but this leaves many open challenges when building a
federation of these repositories to serve the need of asset
reuse. These include accessing and querying individual
repositories and efficiently retrieving
updated content without having to retrieve the whole content.
The Data Warehousing integration approach allows us to cope
with heterogeneity of sources technologies and to benefit from the
optimized performance it offers, given that individual
repositories do not usually change frequently. With Data
Warehousing, the federation requires one to:
- understand the data, i.e. understand their semantic
descriptions, and other systems.
- seamlessly exchange the semantic assets metadata from
different repositories
- keep itself up-to-date.
Repository owners can maintain de-referenceable URIs for
their repository descriptions and contained assets in a Linked Data
compatible manner. ADMS provides the necessary data model to
enable meaningful exchange of data. However, this leaves the
challenge of efficient access to the data not fully addressed.
3.12 Constrained Devices and Networks
Information coming from resource constrained devices in the Web of
Things [WOT]
has been identified as a major driver in many domains, from smart
cities to environmental monitoring to real-time tracking. The
amount of information produced by these devices is growing
exponentially and needs to be accessed and integrated in a
systematic, standardized and cost efficient way. By using the same
standards as on the Web, integration with applications will be
simplified and higher-level interactions among resource
constrained devices, abstracting away heterogeneities, will become
possible. Up-coming IoT/WoT standards such as '6LowPAN' [6LOWPAN]
- IPv6 for resource constrained devices - and the Constrained
Application Protocol [COAP], which provides a downscaled version of
HTTP on top of UDP for the use on constrained devices, are already
at a mature stage. The next step now is to support RESTful
interfaces also on resource constrained devices, adhering to the
Linked Data principles. Due to the limited resources available,
both on the device and in the network (such as bandwidth, energy,
and memory) a solution based on SPARQL Update [RDF-SPARQL-UPDATE] is at the current point
in time considered not to be useful and/or feasible. An approach
based on the HTTP-CoAP Mapping [COAP-MAP] would enable constrained
devices to directly participate in a Linked Data-based
environment.
3.13 Services Supporting the Process of Science
Many fields of science now include branches with in silico
data-intensive methods, e.g. bioinformatics, astronomy. To support
these new methods we look to move beyond the established platforms
provided by scientific workflow systems to capture, assist, and
preserve the complete lifecycle from record of the experiment,
through local trusted sharing, analysis, dissemination (including
publishing of experimental data "beyond the PDF"), and re-use.
- Aggregations,
specifically Research Objects (ROs) are exchanged
between services and clients bringing together workflows, data
sets, annotations, and provenance.
- We need lightweight services that can be simply and easily
integrated into, and scale across the wide variety of softwares
and data used in science.
- Foundation services collect and expose ROs for
storage, modification, exploration, and reuse.
- Services that provide added-value to ROs such as
seamless import/export from scientific workflow systems,
automated stability evaluation, or recommendation.
3.15 Cloud Infrastructure Management
Cloud operators offer API support to provide customers with
remote access for the management of Cloud infrastructure (IaaS).
Infrastructure consists of Systems, Computers, Networks, Discs,
etc. The overall structure can be seen as mostly hierarchical,
(Cloud contains Systems, Systems contain Machines, etc),
complemented with crossing links (e.g. multiple Machines connected
to a Network).
The IaaS scenario makes specific requirements on lifecycle
management and discovery, handling non-instant changes, history
capture and query:
- Many aspects of Cloud infrastructure have associated
lifecycle, e.g. a Computer can be transitioned between Running
and Shutdown. This should be manageable through the API, which
should include how a client discovers dynamic lifecycle options
and thus help steering through an application.
- It is often the case that attaining a new lifecycle state
is not instantaneous. Clients require a universal mechanism for
monitoring such changes.
- A facility to retrieve all events in the lifecycle of a
resource can be useful.
- Query provides the means to interrogate the resources
behind the API, as well as finding new entry points into the
application.
Infrastructure management may be viewed as the manipulation
of the underlying graph of resources.
4. Use Cases
The following use cases are each derived from one or more of
the user stories above. These use cases are explored in detail
through the development of scenarios, each motivated by some key
aspect exemplified by a single user story. The examples they
contain are included purely for illustrative purposes, and should
not be interpreted normatively.
4.1 UC1: Compose resources
A number of user stories introduce the idea of a container
as a mechanism for composing resources within the
context of an application. A
composition would be identified by URI being a linked resource in its own
right. Its properties may represent the affordances
of the application, enabling clients to determine what other
operations they can do. These operations may
include descriptions of application specific services that can be
invoked by exchanging RDF documents.
4.1.1 Primary scenario: create a container
Create a new container resource within the LDP server. In Services Supporting the Process of Science,
Research
Objects are semantically rich aggregations of resources that
bring together data, methods and people in scientific
investigations. A basic workflow research object will be created
to aggregate scientific workflows and their artefacts [RESEARCH-OBJECTS].
These artefacts will be added to the research object throughout the project lifecycle of the project.
The RDF description below captures the initial state of the research object. For the purposes of the example, we have included the time of creation. It is a linked data resource addressed via URL from which the following RDF can be retrieved. The null-relative URL <>
should be understood as a self-reference to the research object itself.
Example 1
@prefix ro: <http://purl.org/wf4ever/ro#> .
@prefix dct: <http://purl.org/dc/terms/> .
@prefix ore: <http://www.openarchives.org/ore/> .
@prefix xsd: <http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema#> .
<> a ro:ResearchObject, ore:Aggregation ;
dct:created "2012-12-01"^^xsd:dateTime .
(see functional requirement
F1.1)
4.1.2 Alternative scenario: create a nested container
The motivation for nested containers comes from the System and Software Development Tool Integration user story. The
OSLC Change Management vocabulary allows bug reports to have
attachments referenced by the membership predicate
oslc_cm:attachment
. This may be viewed as nested containment. The top-level-container contains issues, and
each issue is itself a container of attachments.
In the example, issue1234
is a member of the container top-level-container
. In turn, attachment324
and attachment251
are attachments within issue1234
. Treating these as containers makes it easier to manage them as self-contained units.
Example 2
@prefix dcterms: <http://purl.org/dc/terms/>.
@prefix rdfs: <http://www.w3.org/2000/01/rdf-schema#>.
@prefix oslc_cm: <http://open-services.net/ns/cm#>.
@prefix : <http://example.org/>.
:top-level-container rdfs:member :issue1234 .
:issue1234 a oslc_cm:ChangeRequest;
dcterms:identifier "1234";
dcterms:type "a bug";
oslc_cm:attachments :attachments.
:attachments a oslc_cm:AttachmentList;
oslc_cm:attachment :attachment324, :attachment251.
(see functional requirement
F1.2)
4.1.3 Alternative scenario: Delete a container
If a container can be deleted, it seems natural that any contained resources and nested containers should also be deleted.
(see functional requirement
F1.3).
4.2 UC2: Manage resource lifecycle
This use case addresses the managed lifecycle of a resource and is
concerned with resource ownership. The responsibility for
managing resources belongs to their container. For example, a
container may accept a request from a client to make a new
resource. This use case focuses on creation and deletion of
resources in the context of a container, and the potential for
transfer of ownership by moving resources between containers. The
ownership of a resource should always be clear; no resource
managed in this way should ever be owned by more than one
container.
4.2.1 Primary scenario: create resource
Resources begin life by being created within a container. From
user story, Maintaining Social Contact Information, It should be
possible to "easily create a new contact and add it to my
contacts." This suggests that resource creation is closely linked
to the application context. The new resource is created in a
container representing "my contacts." The lifecycle of the
resource is linked to the lifecycle of it's container. So, for
example, if "my contacts" is deleted then a user would also
reasonably expect that all contacts within it would also be
deleted.
Contact details are captured as an RDF description and it's
properties, including "names, email addresses, telephone numbers,
instant messenger identities and so on." The description may
include non-standard RDF; "data about my contacts that the
original design didn’t consider." The following RDF could be used
to describe contact information using the FOAF
vocabulary [FOAF]. A contact is represented here by a
foaf:PersonalProfileDocument
defining a resource that can be
created and updated as a single-unit, even though it may describe
ancillary resources, such as a foaf:Person
, below.
Example 3
@prefix foaf: <http://xmlns.com/foaf/0.1/> .
<> a foaf:PersonalProfileDocument;
foaf:PrimaryTopic [
a foaf:Person;
foaf:name "Timothy Berners-Lee";
foaf:title "Sir";
foaf:firstName "Timothy";
foaf:surname "Berners-Lee";
foaf:nick "TimBL", "timbl";
foaf:homepage <http://www.w3.org/People/Berners-Lee/>;
foaf:weblog <http://dig.csail.mit.edu/breadcrumbs/blog/4>;
foaf:mbox <mailto:[email protected]>;
foaf:workplaceHomepage <http://www.w3.org/>.
]
(see functional requirement
F2.1)
4.2.2 Alternative scenario: delete resource
Delete a resource and all it's properties. If the resource resides
within a container it will be removed from that container, however
other links to the deleted resource may be left as dangling
references. In the case where the resource is a container, the
server may also delete any or all contained resources. In normal
practice, a deleted resource cannot be reinstated. There are
however, edge-cases where limited undelete may be desirable. Best
practice states that "Cool URIs don't change" [COOLURIS], which implies that
deleted URIs shouldn't be recycled.
(see functional requirement
F2.2)
4.2.3 Alternative scenario: moving contained resources
Resources may have value beyond the life of their membership
in a container. This implies methods to add references to revise
container membership.
A change of ownership may or may not imply a change of URI,
depending upon the naming policy. While assigning a
new URI to a resource is discouraged [WEBARCH], it is possible to indicate that a
resource has moved with an appropriate HTTP response.
(see functional requirement
F2.3)
4.3 UC3: Retrieve resource description
Access the current description of a resource, containing
properties of that resource and links to related resources. The
representation may include descriptions of related resources that
cannot be accessed directly. Depending upon the application, an
server may enrich the retrieved RDF with additional triples. Examples
include adding incoming links, owl:sameAs
closure and rdf:type
closure.
The HTTP response should also include versioning information (i.e.
last update or entity tag) so that subsequent updates can ensure
they are being applied to the correct version.
4.3.1 Primary scenario: retrieve resource description
The user story Project Membership Information discusses the
representation of information about people and projects. It calls
for "Resource descriptions for each person and project" allowing
project teams to review information held about these resources.
The example below illustrates the kinds of information that might
be held about organizational structures based on the Epimorphics
organizational ontology [ORG-ONT].
Examples 4 and 5 below define two resources that would be hosted on an LDP server based at
<http://example.com/>. The representation in Example 4 describes <http://example.com/member1>, while that of Example 5 describes <http://example.com/role>.
A client reading Example 4 would have to separately retrieve Example 5 in order to get role information such as its descriptive label.
Note that the representations of these resources may
include descriptions of related resources, such as
<http://www.w3.org/>, that that fall under a completely different authority and
therefore can't be served directly from the LDP server at this location.
Example 4
@prefix org: <http://www.w3.org/ns/org#> .
@prefix owltime: <http://www.w3.org/2006/time> .
@prefix xsd: <http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema#> .
@base <http://example.com/> .
<member1> a org:Membership ;
org:member <http://www.w3.org/People/Berners-Lee/card#i> ;
org:organization http://www.w3.org/> ;
org:role <director> ;
org:memberDuring [a owltime:Interval; owltime:hasBeginning [
owltime:inXSDDateTime "1994-10-01T00:00:00Z"^^xsd:dateTime]] .
<http://www.w3.org/> a org:FormalOrganization ;
skos:prefLabel "The World Wide Web Consortium"@en ;
skos:altLabel "W3C" .
Example 5
@prefix org: <http://www.w3.org/ns/org#> .
@prefix rdfs: <http://www.w3.org/2000/01/rdf-schema#> .
@base <http://example.com/> .
<director> a org:Role ;
rdfs:label "Director" .
(see functional requirement
F3.1)
4.3.2 Alternative scenario: retrieve description of a non-document resource (hash URI)
In many cases, the things that are of interest are not
always the things that are resolvable. The example below
demonstrates how a FOAF profile may be used to distinguish between
the person and the profile; the former being the topic of the
latter. Where the fragment is defined relative to the base, as in this example, the URL including the fragment may be used to access the resource representing the containing document. The HTTP protocol
requires that the fragment part be stripped off before requesting
the URI from the server. The client can then read properties of the hash URI <#i>
from the retrieved description.
Example 6
@base <http://www.w3.org/People/Berners-Lee/card>
@prefix foaf: <http://xmlns.com/foaf/0.1/>.
@prefix dc: <http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/>.
<> a foaf:PersonalProfileDocument ;
dc:title "Tim Berners-Lee's FOAF file" ;
foaf:homepage <http://www.w3.org/People/Berners-Lee/> ;
foaf:primaryTopic <#i> .
(see functional requirement
F3.2)
4.4 UC4: Update existing resource
Change the RDF description of a LDP resource, potentially removing
or overwriting existing data. This allows applications to enrich
the representation of a resource by addling additional links to
other resources.
4.4.1 Primary scenario: enrichment
This relates to user story Metadata Enrichment in Broadcasting and is based on the BBC
Sports Ontology [BBC-SPORT]. The resource-centric view of linked-data
provides a natural granularity for substituting, or overwriting a
resource and its data. The simplest kind of update would simply
replace what is currently known about a resource with a new
representation.
There are two distinct resources in the example
below; a sporting event and an associated award. The granularity
of the resource would allow a user to replace the information about the
award without disturbing the information about the event.
Example 7
@prefix : <http://example.com/>.
@prefix sport: <http://www.bbc.co.uk/ontologies/sport/> .
@prefix rdfs: <http://www.w3.org/2000/01/rdf-schema#> .
:mens_sprint a sport:MultiStageCompetition;
rdfs:label "Men's Sprint";
sport:award <#gold_medal> .
<#gold_medal> a sport:Award .
The description can be enriched as events unfold, adding a link to
the winner of the gold medal by substituting the above description
with the following.
Example 8
@prefix : <http://example.com/>.
@prefix sport: <http://www.bbc.co.uk/ontologies/sport/> .
@prefix rdfs: <http://www.w3.org/2000/01/rdf-schema#> .
@prefix foaf: <http://xmlns.com/foaf/0.1/> .
:mens_sprint a sport:MultiStageCompetition;
rdfs:label "Men's Sprint";
sport:award <#gold_medal> .
<#gold_medal> a sport:Award;
sport:awarded_to [
a foaf:Agent ;
foaf:name "Chris Hoy" .
] .
(see functional requirement
F4.1)
4.4.2 Alternative scenario: selective update of a resource
This relates to user story Data Catalogs. A catalogue is
described by the following RDF model, based on the Data Catalog Vocabulary [vocab-dcat] which provides a standard format for representing the metadata held by organizations.
Example 9
@prefix : <http://example.com/>.
@prefix dcat: <http://www.w3.org/ns/dcat#> .
@prefix dcterms: <http://purl.org/dc/terms/> .
:catalog a dcat:Catalog ;
dcat:dataset :dataset/001;
dcterms:issued "2012-12-11"^^xsd:date.
A catalog may contain multiple datasets, so when linking to new
datasets it would be simpler and preferable to selectively add
just the new dataset links. For this example, a Changeset [CHANGESET] might be used to add a new dc:title
to the
dataset. The following update would be directed to the catalogue
to add an additional dataset.
Example 10
@prefix : <http://example.com/>.
@prefix dcterms: <http://purl.org/dc/terms/> .
@prefix cs: <http://purl.org/vocab/changeset/schema#> .
@prefix rdf: <http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#>.
<change1>
a cs:ChangeSet ;
cs:subjectOfChange :catalog ;
cs:createdDate "2012-01-01T00:00:00Z" ;
cs:changeReason "Update catalog datasets" ;
cs:addition [
a rdf:Statement ;
rdf:subject :catalog ;
rdf:predicate dcat:dataset ;
rdf:object :dataset/002 .
] .
(see functional requirement
F4.2)
4.5 UC5: Determine if a resource has changed
It should be possible to retrieve versioning information about a
resource (e.g. last modified or entity tag) without having to
download a representation of the resource. This information can
then be compared with previous information held about that
resource to determine if it has changed. This versioning
information can also be used in subsequent conditional
requests to ensure they are only applied if the version is
unchanged.
- NF5.1: Multiple changes to a resource: The Project Membership Information user story is concerned with "access to the 'current' state", as distinct from earlier versions.
This is particularly relevant to changes which are made with respect to a specific version of the resource description.
The LDP must ensure consistent access in the case of multiple simultaneous attempts to access a resource.
4.5.1 Primary scenario: determine if a resource has changed
Based on the user story, Constrained Devices and Networks, an LDP server could be configured to
act as a proxy for a CoAP [COAP] based Web of Things [WOT]. As an observer of CoAP resources, the LDP server registers
its interest so that it will be notified whenever the sensor
reading changes. Clients of the LDP can interrogate the server to
determine if the state has changed.
In this example, the information about a sensor and corresponding
sensor readings can be represented as RDF resources. The first
resource below, represents a sensor described using the Semantic
Sensor Network [SSN] ontology.
Example 11
@prefix : <http://example.com/energy-management/>.
@prefix rdfs: <http://www.w3.org/2000/01/rdf-schema#> .
@prefix ssn: <http://purl.oclc.org/NET/ssnx/ssn#> .
<> a :MainsFrequencySensor;
rdfs:comment "Sense grid load based on mains frequency";
ssn:hasMeasurementCapability [
a :FrequencyMeasurementCapability;
ssn:hasMeasurementProperty <#property_1> .
] .
The value of the sensor changes in real-time as measurements are
taken. The LDP client can interrogate the resource below to
determine if it has changed, without necessarily having to
download the RDF representation. As different sensor properties
are represented disjointly (separate RDF representations) they may
change independently.
Example 12
@prefix : <http://example.com/energy-management/> .
@prefix ssn: <http://purl.oclc.org/NET/ssnx/ssn#> .
@prefix xsd: <http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema#> .
<http://example.com/energy-management#property_1> :hasMeasurementPropertyValue <> .
<> a :FrequencyValue;
:hasQuantityValue "50"^^xsd:float.
(see functional requirement
F5.1)
4.6 UC6: Aggregate resources
There is a requirement to be able to manage collections of
resources. The concept of a collection overlaps with, but is
distinct from that of a container. These collections are (weak)
aggregations, unrelated to the lifecycle management of resources,
and distinct from the ownership between a resource and its
container. However, the composition of a container may be
reflected as a collection to support navigation of the container
and its contents. There is a need to be able to create collections
by adding and deleting individual membership properties. Resources
may belong to multiple collections, or to none.
4.6.1 Primary scenario: add a resource to a collection
This example is from Library Linked Data and LLD-UC [LLD-UC], specifically Subject Search.
There is an existing collection at
<http://example.com/concept-scheme/subject-heading> that
defines a collection of subject headings. This collection is
defined as a skos:ConceptScheme
and the client wishes to insert a
new concept into the scheme. which will be related to the
collection via a skos:inScheme
link. In the example below, a new subject-heading,
"outer space exploration" is added to the scheme:subject-heading
collection. The following RDF describes the (item-level)
description of the collection,
also demonstrating that the relationship between the parent and child resources may run in a seemingly counter-intuitive direction, from child to parent.
Example 13
@prefix scheme : <http://example.com/concept-scheme/>.
@prefix concept : <http://example.com/concept/>.
@prefix skos: <http://www.w3.org/2004/02/skos/core#> .
scheme:subject-heading a skos:ConceptScheme.
concept:Outer+space+Exploration skos:inScheme scheme:subject-heading.
(see functional requirement
F6.1)
4.6.2 Alternative scenario: add a resource to multiple collections
Logically, a resource should not be owned by more than one
container. However, it may be a member of multiple collections
which define a weaker form of aggregation. As this is
simply a manipulation of the RDF description of a collection, it
should be possible to add the same resource to multiple
collections.
As a machine-readable collection of medical terms, the SNOMED CT ontology [SNOMED]
is of key importance in user story, Healthcare. SNOMED CT allows concepts with more than one parent. In the example below, SNOMED concepts are treated as
collections (aggregations) of narrower concepts. We see that the
concept :TissueSpecimenFromHeart
belongs to two parent collections as it is both a :TissueSpecimen
and a :SpecimenFromHeart
.
This example also demonstrates how composition and aggregation support different scenarios, as the ability to have multiple parents should not be a possibility with composition.
Example 14
@prefix : <http://example.com/snomed/>.
@prefix skos: <http://www.w3.org/2004/02/skos/core#> .
:TissueSpecimen a skos:Concept ;
:conceptID "119376003";
skos:prefLabel "Tissue specimen"
skos:narrowerTransitive :TissueSpecimenFromHeart.
:SpecimenFromHeart a skos:Concept ;
:conceptID "127462005";
skos:prefLabel "Specimen from heart"
skos:narrowerTransitive :TissueSpecimenFromHeart.
:TissueSpecimenFromHeart a skos:Concept;
:conceptID "128166000";
rdfs:label "Tissue specimen from heart".
(see functional requirement
F6.2)
4.7 UC7: Filter resource description
This use case extends the normal behaviour of retrieving an
RDF description of a resource, by dynamically excluding specific
(membership) properties. For containers, it is often desirable to
be able to read a collection, or item-level description that
excludes the container membership.
4.7.1 Primary scenario: retrieve collection-level description
This scenario, based on Library Linked Data, uses the Dublin Core Metadata Initiative Collection-Level description [DC-COLLECTIONS]. A collection can
refer to any aggregation of physical or digital items. This
scenario covers the case whereby a client can request a
collection-level description as typified by the example below,
without necessarily having to download a full listing of the items
within the collection.
Example 15
@prefix dc: <http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/>.
@prefix : <http://example.org/bookshelf/>.
@prefix dcmitype: <http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/>.
@prefix cld: <http://purl.org/cld/terms/>.
@prefix dcterms: <http://purl.org/dc/terms/>.
<> dc:type dcmitype:Collection ;
dc:title "Directory of organizations working with Linked Data" ;
dcterms:abstract "This is a directory of organisations specializing in Linked Data."
cld:isLocatedAt <http://dir.w3.org>
cld:isAccessedVia <http://dir.w3.org/directory/pages/landing-page.xhtml?view>
(see functional requirement
F7.1)
4.7.2 Alternative scenario: retrieve item-level description of a collection
This use case scenario, also based on Library Linked Data,
focuses on obtaining an item-level description of the resources
aggregated by a collection. The simplest scenario is where the
members of a collection are returned within a single
representation, so that a client can explore the data by following
these links. Different applications may use different membership
predicates to capture this aggregation. The example below uses
rdfs:member
, but many different membership predicates are in
common use, including RDF Lists. Item-level descriptions can be
captured using the Functional Requirements for Bibliographic
Records (FRBR) ontology [FRBR] [FRBR-CORE].
Based on the example below, the item-level description should include as a minimum all the rdfs:member
relationships. It need not include other properties of the collection, and it need not include additional properties of the members.
Example 16
@prefix frbr: <http://purl.org/vocab/frbr/core#>.
@prefix dc: <http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/>.
@prefix rdfs: <http://www.w3.org/2000/01/rdf-schema#> .
<> rdfs:member <#ebooks97>, <#ebooks21279>.
<#work97> a frbr:LiteraryWork;
dc:title "Flatland: a romance of many dimensions" ;
frbr:creator <#Abbott_Edwin>;
frbr:manifestation <ebook97>.
<#work21279> a frbr:LiteraryWork;
dc:title "2 B R 0 2 B" ;
frbr:creator <#Vonnegut_Kurt>;
frbr:manifestation <ebook21279>.
(see functional requirement
F7.2)
4.8 UC8: Retrieve a large resource description in multiple parts
This use case addresses a problem with the “resource-centric” approach to interacting with RDF data. The problem is that some resources participate in a very large number of triples, and therefore a “resource-centric” granularity leads to resource descriptions that are too large to be practically processed in a single HTTP request. This use case applies to all resources, not just containers.
- It's not really the resource description that's being paginated, but the values of a particular property.
- The server is responsible for pagination, and may decide how large the pages are.
- Pagination should apply symmetrically to both incoming and outgoing properties.
- The next-page URL should be treated as opaque.
4.8.1 Primary scenario: Pagination
In user story, Maintaining Social Contact Information, it is not uncommon for users to have a very large number of contacts.
This leads to a very large resource description, especially if some basic information about the contacts is included as well. The size of this representation may be so large that retrieval in a single HTTP request is impractical.
In this example the response to the first request includes a reference to the next
resource in an ordered collection of resources. For the purposes of the example, we make use of the next
property defined by the XHTML Metainformation Vocabulary. There is no presumption that the LDP specification will recommend the use of this vocabulary.
Example 17
@prefix : <http://example.com/people/>.
@prefix xhv: <http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml/vocab#>.
:alice a foaf:Person;
rdfs:label "Alice";
foaf:mbox <mailto:[email protected]>.
<> xhv:next <http://example.com/1234567890>.
When the client requests the resource identified by next
, the response includes additional content that can be merged with the earlier data to construct a more complete model of the originally requested resource. It may also contain further next
links, which may be requested in turn.
The following representation is the response to the resource identified by next
, completing the contacts list.
Example 18
@prefix : <http://example.com/people/>.
:bob a foaf:Person;
rdfs:label "Bob";
foaf:mbox <mailto:[email protected]>.
(see functional requirement
F8.1)
4.9 UC9: Manage binary resources
It should be possible to easily add non-RDF binary resources
to containers that accept them. Binary resources may be updated and
removed during the lifecycle of the container.
4.9.1 Primary scenario: access binary resources
From the user story Sharing Binary Resources and Metadata it should be possible to
easily add non-RDF resources to containers that accept them.
Clients submit a non-RDF representation to a container in a media
type accepted by that container. The container creates a URI to
represent this media resource, and creates a link from the
container to the new URI. The binary resource may be accompanied by an explicit RDF
description. It should be possible to find the
metadata about such a resource and to access and edit it in
the usual ways.
This example uses the Ontology for Media Resources to describe a media resource added to a
collection [MEDIAONT].
Example 19
@prefix ma: <http://www.w3.org/ns/ma-ont#> .
<dataset> a ma:Collection ;
ma:hasMember <dataset/image1.jpg>
<dataset/image1.jpg> a ma:MediaResource ;
ma:hasFormat "image/jpeg" .
(see functional requirement
F9.1)
4.9.2 Alternative scenario: media-resource attachments
A resource may have multiple renditions. For example, you
can have a PDF and a JPEG representing the same thing. A user is
trying to create a work order along with an attached image showing
a faulty machine part. To the user and to the work order system,
these two artifacts are managed as a set. A single request may
create the work order, the attachment, and the relationship
between them, atomically. When the user retrieves the work order
later, they expect a single request by default to retrieve the
work order plus all attachments. When the user updates the work
order, e.g. to mark it completed, they only want to update the
work order proper, not its attachments. Users may
add/remove/replace attachments to the work order during its
lifetime.
(see functional requirement
F9.2)