DFC standard specifications
DFC Use Cases
DFC Use Cases
  • Introduction
  • Sources and licences
  • Contact and partners
  • Semantic specifications
    • Business ontology
    • Product ontology
    • Technical ontology
  • Technical specifications
    • Protocols specifications
    • Decentralized identifier matching reference system
    • Specifics API
    • Authentication strategy
    • Architecture representations
  • Prototype specifications
  • 🚧Solid client protocol
  • 🚧Connector
    • Model specifications
    • Semantizer specifications
    • Connector specifications
  • Use Cases
    • Enterprise Use Cases
    • Product Use Cases
      • Product Transformations
      • CSA Use Cases
    • Orders
    • Order Use Cases
      • Wholesale Order Processing
    • Glossary of terms
  • Appendixes
    • Appendix 1. General decisions
      • Federation vs Syndication
      • Stateless or stateful?
      • Service granularity
      • Directionality
      • Identification and authentication
      • Centralized or decentralized data storage
      • Metadata repository
    • Appendix 2. Technical decisions
      • Libraries to develop in semantic
      • Transition strategy fron current to ideal
      • Service standard
      • Serialization
      • Transport layer
      • Multi- or single-resource requests?
      • Right delegation between platforms and DFC
      • Data validity and inferences
    • Appendix 3. Practical Examples
      • Version 1.9
      • Version 1.8.2
      • version 1.7.4
      • version 1.7.3
      • version 1.7.1
      • version 1.7
      • version 1.6.2
      • version 1.6.1
      • version 1.6
      • version 1.5.1
      • version 1.5
      • version 1.3
      • version 1.2
  • Contributing
    • Procedures
      • Updates to the ontology
        • Patch releases procedure
        • Minor releases procedure
        • Major releases procedure
      • Taxonomy enrichment
        • Taxonomy updates
    • Platform Notifcations
  • Platform Register
    • Platform Register
Powered by GitBook
On this page

Was this helpful?

  1. Appendixes
  2. Appendix 2. Technical decisions

Transport layer

HTTP has become the unquestioned standard to exchange data unidirectionally. FTP is still relevant to exchange files containing data like ods or xlsx values but is not adapted to our needs. HTTP can be improved with the REST logic. This good practice makes the best use of the HTTP standard to harmonize APIs.

In the semantic world, another standard complements the HTTP: Linked Data Platform. This standardizes the structure of the requested semantic content. It is based on 2 concepts: containers and resources. Containers contain resources. A resource can reference containers that contain data linked to it. A resource can itself be a container. Some contradictions exist between REST and LDP. The header link for example is used to indicate the links that a resource has with another resource in REST while it is used to indicate what is the nature of the resource (Resource, BasicContainer, DirectContainer ...) in LDP. JSON-LD is compatible with LDP provided that it complies with the Resource / Container logic. LDP does not impose a form of url and OpenApi remains relevant to describe the API.

Conclusion: use HTTP and LDP while following a REST logic as much as possible

PreviousSerializationNextMulti- or single-resource requests?

Last updated 10 months ago

Was this helpful?