I have retrieved all primitives of my ontology using Jena. And now, I have to make URI for each primitive which has no URI (like blank node and literals) but I don't know how to proceed. If someone can help please.
Related
I am struggling to understand the differences between the attribute name, path and value in #RequestMapping. I looked into the API, but it doesn't illustrate it clearly. I googled for hours but it just works partially. Can you tell me the details? Thank you!
Let's see the javadoc. Start with path:
The path mapping URIs (e.g. "/profile").
So that's the path(s) that will be used by Spring to decide if this methd should be called or not, based on the actual path of the request.
Now value:
The primary mapping expressed by this annotation.
This is an alias for path(). For example, #RequestMapping("/foo") is equivalent to #RequestMapping(path="/foo").
So, it's quite clear: value and path are exactly equivalent.
And finally name:
Assign a name to this mapping.
So this is completely different. It gives a name to this mapping. Why could a name be useful for a mapping? You can discover that by clicking on the "See also" classes linked to attrbibute in the documentation. The javadoc for HandlerMethodMappingNamingStrategy says:
Applications can build a URL to a controller method by name with the help of the static method MvcUriComponentsBuilder#fromMappingName [...]
So, as you see, the name of a mapping can be used to construct a URL that will match to a given controller method by using the name of its mapping. That makes it possible to change the path of a mapping without changing it everywhere, by using names rather than paths.
The reference documentation, in addition to the javadoc, should be your first destination. This is usually way more effective when you want to learn about the framework than googling.
(I've already asked this on the W3/JSON mailing list, I'll try here too.)
I'm fairly new to JSON-LD, although I have significant experience with Semantic Web technologies.
I've read the guideline document (https://www.w3.org/TR/json-ld/) and I haven't get if the feature at issue is supported:
Suppose you have JSON objects of #type Person and #type Address, both having the #id property. Typical API-coming data will have values like integers or some internal, context-dependant IDs. It's pretty common to RDF-translate those values to prefix-based URIs like http://www.example.com/Person/123 or http://www.example.com/Address/xh324m44.
What I would like to do is to specify those prefixes and keep data telling #id = '123', with the value joins happening at RDF serialisation stage (the same specification would make it possible to do the opposite conversion too). Clearly, in such a use case, the prefixes depend on the #type of objects, and the #base mechanism is not enough. Moreover, it would be useful to have this mechanism available for properties too, e.g., to associate the address URI prefix to the values of the "address" JSON property.
It doesn't seem that this is currently available in JSON-LD, or am I missing something? Any plan for future extensions?
You can use #base in the context to create a URI base for values of #id, but this will not include something from #type. This sounds like something you might get by defining a URI template and using variables to expand type and id to create a URI. You can do this in a templating language and create the JSON-LD, but not directly in JSON-LD itself. Not likely to be a feature included by the language in the future, either, as it's application is pretty narrow.
I'm a little confused on how I should handle singular and plural routes and controllers in my web application.
The website is a simple quotes site - think Einstein, Shakespeare etc. not Insurance. Within the project I have a controller called `QuoteController'. The controller name is singular, so does this mean that the controller should only handle the display of single quotes? I.E.
/quote/love-is-a-battlefield-1
Do I then need another controller for the display of multiple quotes (plural)? For example:
/quotes/ (would default to most recent)
/quotes/new
/quotes/shakespeare
/quotes/popular
Is it convention, or good practice, to have separate controllers for singular and plural routes? I hope that makes sense.
Just because the default controllers of asp-mvc have singular names, it doesn't mean you should implement singular form for all your controllers.
The correct answer is: it depends on the quantity of the entity that your controller represents.
Singular, example the AccountController is singular because it represents actions (action method) pertaining to a single account only.
Plural If your controller contains at least one action method that handles multiple entities at a single transaction.
Example plural format
users/update/3
The route above makes you think you are editing all users, which does not makes sense if you read it like a sentence. However, if you read your route like query, it will make much more sense.
If we think about it, a route IS a query: {entities}/{action}/{parameter} looks like a query to me.
users/ shorthand of users/all reads "select all users table"
users/123 reads "select single entity from users table"
users/update/123 reads "update single entity from users table"
Major sites use plural format, see sample below
stackoverflow.com/questions <- list of questions (multiple)
stackoverflow.com/questions/18570158 <- individual question (single)
stackoverflow.com/questions/ask <- new question (single)
stackoverflow.com/users <- display list of users (multple)
stackoverflow.com/users/114403 <- individual user (single)
asp.net/mvc/tutorials <- display list of tutorials (multiple)
asp.net/mvc/tutorials/mvc-5 <- individual tutorial (single)
facebook.com/messages/ <- Display list of messages (multiple)
facebook.com/messages/new <- Create a single message (single)
facebook.com/messages/john <- view individual messages (multiple)
I believe that English grammar should be strictly incorporated in every programming aspect. It reads more natural, and leads to good code hygiene.
Answer
Here's a question asked in programmers StackExchange that suggests keeping class names singular. I especially like the logic in one of the answers, "The tool to turn screws with is called "screw driver" not "screws driver"." Which I agree with. The names should be kept to nouns and adjectives.
As far as routing goes, best practices seems to favor that routes be pluralized nouns, and to avoid using verbs. This Apigee blog says, "avoid a mixed model in which you use singular for some resources, plural for others. Being consistent allows developers to predict and guess the method calls as they learn to work with your API." and suggests using singular or plural based off what popular websites have done. Their only example for using singular nouns in the route is the Zappos site, which has http://www.zappos.com/Product as a route; but if you examine the site, it's not exactly a route to a product resource but is instead a query, probably for all their products. You can enter http://www.zappos.com/anything and get a results page. So I wouldn't put too much stock into that.
Other blogs like this one from mwaysolutions (random find) say to "use nouns but no verbs" and "use plural nouns". Other points aside, most blogs/articles tend to say the same thing. Plural nouns and no verbs.
TL;DR: Use singular nouns for controllers and plural nouns for routes.
Controllers
Controllers and routes represent two different concepts. The controller is a class, or a blueprint. Similar to a stamper, I wouldn't say I had a UnicornsStamper I'd say I had a UnicornStamper that makes a stamp of a unicorn with which I could make a collection of unicorn stamps with. Collections, Enum types that are bit fields, static class that is a collection of properties (acts like a collection), and probably a few other edge cases are where I'd use a plural name.
Routes
A(n) URL is an address to a resource, thus the name Uniform Resource Locator. I disagree that "a route IS a query". Routes can contain queries (query string) to narrow down returned resources but the route is the location or the resource(s) that's being requested.
With the advent of attribute routing, pluralizing routes for controllers is as easy as adding a [RoutePrefix("quotes")] attribute to the QuoteController declaration. This also allows for easier design for associative routes. Looking at the sample routes provided in the original question:
/quotes
GET: Gets all quotes
POST: Creates a new quote
/authors/shakespeare/quotes
Associative route in the QuoteController
GET: Gets all Shakespeare quotes
/quotes/new
This is a bad route IMO. Avoid verbs.
Make a POST request to '/api/quotes' to create a new quote
/quotes/shakespeare
/quotes/popular
Although these would be nice to have, they're not practical for routing (see below)
The problem with the last two routes is that you have no simple way of differentiating between popular quotes and quotes by authors, not to mention that routes that link to quotes by name or Id. You would need actions decorated with [Route("popular")] followed by [Route("{author}")] (in that order) in order for the routing table to pick the routes up in the appropriate order. But the author route kills the possibility of having routes [Route("{quoteName}")] or [Route("{quoteId}")] (assuming quoteId is a string). Naturally, you'll want to have the ability to route to quotes by name and/or ID.
Slightly Off Topic
Getting quotes by author would best be done by an associative route. You could still probably get away with the popular route as a static route name, but at this point you're increasing route complexity which would be better suited for a query string. Off the top of my head, this is how I might design these routes if I really wanted to have the popular search term in the route:
a:/authors/{authorName}/quotes
b:/authors/{authorName}/quotes/popular
c:/authors/{authorName}/quotes?popular=true
d:/quotes/popular
e:/quotes/popular?author={authorName}
f:/quotes?author={authorName}&popular=true
g:/quotes/{quoteName|quoteId}
These could be spread across the QuoteController's actions. Assuming the controller has a [RoutePrefix("quotes")] attribute:
[HttpGet]
[Route("popular")]
[Route("~/authors/{authorName}/quotes/popular")]
// Handles routes b, d, & e
public ViewResult GetPopularQuotes(string authorName)
return GetQuotes(authorName, true);
[HttpGet]
[Route("")]
[Route("~/authors/{authorName}/quotes")
// Handles routes a, c, & f
public ViewResult GetQuotes(string authorName, bool popular = false)
// TODO: Write logic to get quotes filtered by authorName (if provided)
// If popular flag, only include popular quotes
[HttpGet]
[Route("{quoteId}")]
// Handles route g
public ViewResult GetQuoteById(string quoteId)
// TODO: Write logic to get a single quote by ID
Disclaimer: I wrote these attributes off the top of my head, there may be minor discrepancies that would need to be ironed out, but hopefully the gist how to get these routes to work comes through.
Hopefully this helps to clear up some confusion on the topic of controller and routing best practices on naming conventions. Ultimately the decision to use plural or singular controllers or routes is up to the developer. Regardless, be consistent once you pick a best practice to follow.
Name of controller can be plural or singular based on the logic it executes. Most likely we keep controller name as singular because ProductController sounds little better than ProductsController.
/product/list or /products/list
/product/add or /products/add
You can use both. But you must keep consistency and you should not mix them. Either all URL should be plural for every entity types or all should be singular.
In ASP.NET sample, they have used Singular controller names Such as HomeController, AccountController. In case of HomeController you can't use HomesController because that no longer represents current site Home.
With regards to logic, mostly we create Controller per database entity, in which we infer that Controller represents Actions to be performed on "Entity" So it is good to use Singular controller name and there is no harm.
Only if you want to create set of Controller representing collection of something that should look like or map to plural database table names then you can name that as plural.
Good question. Some contributors to this site would recommend you try Programmers website, but I'm willing to attempt an answer to your question.
Routing mechanism in ASP.NET MVC ,conceptually, is based on Resource-oriented architecture; the common guideline in ROA is
Applications should expose many URIs (possibly an infinite number of them), one for each Resource (any resources in your applications should be unambiguously accessible via a unique URI)
So, it's up to you to decide whether quote and quotes are two different resources or not.
I am working on asp .net web project, In which i am stuck in architectural issue.
I having two Request parameters with same key but they are Case sensitive.
Param names => reportDate and ReportDate
As we know Request object internally implements NameValueCollection for it parameters, which is not case sensitive.
So above two parameters values will merged in a single a value with comma separated.
Which i don't want.
How can i overcome this problem.
Can i write my custom Request module where i can specify IEquality comparator for name-value collection.
Because i don't want to change much of code.
Any suggestion from any one is ?
Thanks in advance.
I have a document based on a xml structure that I have stored in a CouchDB database.
Some of the keys contains namespaces and are on the form "namespace:key":
{"mykey": {"nested:key": "nested value"}}
In the map function, I want to emit the nested value as a key, but the colon inside the name makes it hard...
emit(doc.mykey.nested:key, doc) <-- will not work.
Does anyone know how this can be solved?
A hint that its all just JSON and JavaScript got me some new ideas for searching.
It may be that colon in json keys ain't valid, but I found a way. By looking at the doc object as an hash, I can access my value in the following manner:
Doc.mykey['nested:key']
It works - for now...
That's because Couch is a JSON based document DB, and doc.mykey.nested:key is not a valid JSON identifier. JSON identifiers must match JavaScripts identifiers, and : is not a valid identifier character.
So, the simple answer is: "No, this won't and can't work". You need to change your identifiers.
Actually, I should qualify that.
Couch can use pretty much ANYTHING for it's views et al, and, in theory, works with any payload. But out of the box, it's just JavaScript and JSON.