Alteração das opções de ações da cláusula de controle

Notícia do mercado de ações de hoje & amp; Análise.
Roku mostra a volatilidade é seu amigo em ações individuais, também.
A Roku tem uma visão para o futuro.
Vídeos de notícias mais recentes.
Últimas notícias.
Procurar notícias por categoria.
Tecnologia.
Commodities.
Idéias de investimento.
Inteligência de mercado.
Fique à frente dos mercados com estes artigos de leitura obrigatória.
Mercado de ações hoje.
Ações para assistir.
Rally dos estoques conforme os investidores reavaliam o relatório do Fed.
História em destaque de.
Últimos artigos por Martin Tillier.
A nova coluna de leitura obrigatória de Martin Tiller nos mercados.
Esclarecedor. Divertido. Todo dia. Apenas na NASDAQ.
Editar favoritos.
Insira até 25 símbolos separados por vírgulas ou espaços na caixa de texto abaixo. Esses símbolos estarão disponíveis durante sua sessão para uso nas páginas aplicáveis.
Personalize sua experiência NASDAQ.
Selecione a cor de fundo de sua escolha:
Selecione uma página de destino padrão para sua pesquisa de cotação:
Por favor, confirme sua seleção:
Você selecionou para alterar sua configuração padrão para a Pesquisa de cotação. Esta será agora sua página de destino padrão; a menos que você altere sua configuração novamente ou exclua seus cookies. Tem certeza de que deseja alterar suas configurações?
Desative seu bloqueador de anúncios (ou atualize suas configurações para garantir que o javascript e os cookies estejam habilitados), para que possamos continuar fornecendo as novidades do mercado de primeira linha e os dados que você esperou de nós.

Respostas Rápidas.
As leis federais de valores mobiliários exigem uma divulgação clara, concisa e compreensível sobre remuneração paga a CEOs, CFOs e alguns outros diretores executivos de empresas de capital aberto. Vários tipos de documentos que uma empresa registra na SEC incluem informações sobre as políticas e práticas de remuneração dos executivos da empresa. Você pode localizar informações sobre remuneração de executivos em: (1) declaração de procuração anual da empresa; (2) o relatório anual da empresa no Formulário 10-K; e (3) declarações de registro arquivadas pela companhia para registrar valores mobiliários para venda ao público.
O lugar mais fácil para procurar informações sobre remuneração de executivos é provavelmente a declaração de procuração anual. Os relatórios anuais no Formulário 10-K e as declarações de registro podem simplesmente encaminhá-lo para as informações na declaração de procuração anual, em vez de apresentar as informações diretamente. Clique aqui para obter informações sobre como localizar a declaração de procuração anual de uma empresa no site da SEC.
Na declaração anual de procuração, uma empresa deve divulgar informações sobre a quantidade e o tipo de remuneração paga ao seu diretor-presidente, diretor financeiro e aos outros três executivos mais altamente remunerados. Uma empresa também deve divulgar os critérios usados para chegar a decisões de remuneração de executivos e o relacionamento entre as práticas de remuneração executiva da empresa e o desempenho corporativo.
A Tabela de Remuneração Sumária é a pedra angular da divulgação exigida pela SEC sobre remuneração de executivos. A Tabela de Remuneração Resumida fornece, em um único local, uma visão abrangente das práticas de remuneração dos executivos da empresa. Ele estabelece a remuneração total paga ao diretor executivo, ao diretor financeiro e a outros três executivos altamente remunerados nos últimos três exercícios sociais. A Tabela de Remuneração Resumida é seguida por outras tabelas e divulgação contendo informações mais específicas sobre os componentes da remuneração do último exercício fiscal completo. Essa divulgação inclui, entre outras coisas, informações sobre concessões de opções de ações e direitos de valorização de ações; prêmios de incentivo de longo prazo; planos de pensão; e contratos de trabalho e arranjos relacionados.
Além disso, a seção Discussão e Análise de Remuneração (“CD & amp; A”) fornece uma descrição narrativa explicando todos os elementos materiais dos programas de remuneração executiva da empresa.
As leis federais de valores mobiliários também exigem que as empresas ponham o pagamento divulgado de seus executivos a uma votação dos acionistas nos chamados votos "say-on-pay". Os votos devem ser apenas de natureza consultiva, mas cada empresa deve divulgar no CD & A se e, em caso afirmativo, como suas políticas e decisões de compensação levaram em conta os resultados do voto mais recente sobre remuneração. As empresas são obrigadas a ter votos por escrito a cada um, dois ou três anos. Para obter mais informações sobre esses votos, consulte nosso Boletim de Investidores sobre votos por meio de pagamento.
OBSERVAÇÃO: A decisão de uma empresa em relação à quantidade e ao tipo de compensação a ser dada a um diretor executivo é uma decisão comercial e não está sob a jurisdição da SEC. Em vez disso, a jurisdição da SEC se estende à divulgação - assegurando que o público investidor receba uma divulgação completa e justa das informações relevantes sobre as quais basear as decisões de investimento e votação informadas. A esse respeito, as leis federais de valores mobiliários exigem a divulgação do montante e tipo de remuneração paga ao CEO da empresa e a outros executivos altamente remunerados.

Consultor APB.
Seu parceiro na conformidade ISO.
Home & raquo; ISO 14001: 2015 Cláusula 4 Contexto da organização.
ISO 9001: 2015.
ISO 14001: 2015 EMS.
ISO 9001: 2008.
ISO 9000: 2005.
ISO 14001: 2015 Cláusula 4 Contexto da organização.
ISO 14001: 2015 Cláusula 4 Contexto da organização.
Uma das mudanças mais significativas no padrão de 2015 é a introdução de uma cláusula inteiramente nova no contexto da organização. O contexto da Organização torna um requisito formal para as organizações considerarem:
Seus impactos ambientais diretos Como as condições ambientais podem afetar seus negócios, clientes e cadeia de suprimento Fatores sociais e econômicos externos (por exemplo, crenças e normas da sociedade e suas expectativas da organização, desempenho ambiental de colegas e concorrentes) e capacidades internas (por exemplo, a capacidade da organização implementar novas tecnologias e influenciar mudanças de comportamento em seus funcionários).
Isso aumenta significativamente o trabalho de planejamento que você precisa fazer para manter sua certificação ISO 14001, mas a abordagem aprimorada oferece uma visão muito melhor dos riscos e oportunidades para sua organização e ajudará a desenvolver uma estratégia corporativa mais robusta. As revisões anteriores da ISO 14001 exigiam que as organizações definissem o escopo - as atividades, os processos, os edifícios e a propriedade dentro de seu EMS. A política ambiental da organização incluiu compromissos para cumprir as regulamentações ambientais aplicáveis, reduzir a poluição e melhorar continuamente seu desempenho ambiental. O contexto da Organização é a primeira parte auditável da ISO 14001: 2015 e pode ser auditada para o início da auditoria do SGA. O auditor estará procurando e documentando questões de alto nível e documentação disponível que demonstre a implementação efetiva do sistema EMS de uma organização.
Contexto da Organização.
Um dos objetivos da ISO 14001: 2015 é reunir as questões ambientais internas de uma organização, questões externas e partes interessadas que compõem o ambiente de negócios da empresa ou o Contexto da Organização. No passado, a alta administração nunca foi obrigada a definir o ambiente de negócios da empresa, uma vez que estava relacionada a questões internas e externas ou a quaisquer partes interessadas. As questões internas podem ser a qualidade do ar, o transporte de resíduos e seus custos. Problemas externos podem incluir clientes e requisitos legais. As partes interessadas podem ser os vizinhos vizinhos da organização e vários órgãos ambientais locais, estaduais e federais. Os clientes também são partes interessadas como resultado de suas exigências para certos usos químicos e outros materiais. Através da identificação do Contexto da Organização, a alta gerência pode se concentrar em ser mais amiga do meio ambiente e garantir que a organização permaneça em conformidade com todos os regulamentos. O foco da alta gerência não requer documentação; no entanto, a maioria das organizações documentará os problemas internos e externos, além das partes interessadas no ambiente. Também visa definir o escopo do SGA no que se refere à operação do negócio. Esse escopo pode incluir itens adicionais aos limites da organização. Um exemplo pode ser problemas de qualidade do ar na área ao redor da instalação, se importante. Esta cláusula também define em termos gerais o sistema EMS de uma organização. Isso incluiria os processos necessários para que a organização seja bem-sucedida. Alguns processos serão documentados e outros não documentados. A identificação adequada do Contexto da Organização ajudará na construção de um sistema EMS completo que atenda às necessidades da alta gerência. Embora muitas organizações com certificação ISO 14001 incluíssem iniciativas como a substituição de materiais tóxicos, atividades de reciclagem e redução do uso de combustíveis fósseis, a maioria dos programas ambientais fomentados por organizações certificadas era “reativa” por natureza.
As novas cláusulas da ISO 14001: 2015, Entendendo a organização e seu contexto e Entendendo as necessidades e expectativas das partes interessadas, desafiam as organizações a analisar suas operações e o impacto ambiental de um ponto de vista mais holístico e proativo.
Com relação ao contexto da organização, dependendo do modelo de negócios da organização e do impacto ambiental, pode haver oportunidades para ter programas com um impacto proativo positivo: emissões atmosféricas relacionadas a mudanças climáticas, melhoria na qualidade do solo de áreas adjacentes ou cursos d'água próximos e apoiar iniciativas de biodiversidade (flora local-fauna). A organização deve ser capaz de explicar, dentro do contexto de suas operações, quais oportunidades existem. Uma empresa que produz peças usinadas ou componentes eletrônicos pode ter opções limitadas; uma grande fábrica de produtos químicos, refinaria de petróleo ou fábrica de papel pode ter muitas oportunidades. De forma semelhante, em resposta às expectativas das partes interessadas, a organização deve analisar como suas atividades e produtos podem ter um impacto ambiental em seus clientes, comunidade e vizinhos. Exemplos podem ser descarte de produtos em fim de vida, rotulagem voluntária de produtos, redução de materiais não regulamentados, recursos sustentáveis e compromissos para manter as terras ou vias navegáveis da comunidade adjacente. Um dos principais focos da ISO 14001: 2015 é o “pensamento sobre o ciclo de vida”, considerando cada estágio de um produto ou serviço, desde o desenvolvimento até o fim da vida. As organizações que produzem produtos de consumo podem ter muitas oportunidades (mas também desafios) de ter um impacto no descarte de produtos, enquanto os fabricantes de componentes para venda na indústria podem ser limitados a esse respeito. As organizações que fornecem componentes para venda para a indústria podem demonstrar seu compromisso com o pensamento sobre o ciclo de vida, reduzindo ou eliminando o uso de materiais com impacto ambiental e maximizando as iniciativas de reciclagem. Os fabricantes de produtos de consumo podem apoiar o pensamento sobre o ciclo de vida, mudando para o descarte “de aterro zero” via opções de descarte de resíduos para energia (resíduos são queimados para produzir eletricidade). A ISO 14001: 2015 exige que as organizações estabeleçam uma política que promova a proteção ambiental específica para o contexto de seus negócios. As versões anteriores da ISO 14001 colocaram a proteção ambiental em um modo um pouco reativo, onde iniciativas proativas incluíam programas de reciclagem e prevenção de poluição diretamente relacionados aos processos de fabricação da organização. Com a ISO 14001: 2015, a organização é obrigada a entender as questões importantes que podem afetar, positiva ou negativamente, a forma como gerencia suas responsabilidades ambientais. Exemplos incluem:
Redução de emissões atmosféricas relacionadas a mudanças climáticas Uso de recursos sustentáveis Melhorias na qualidade do solo de áreas adjacentes ou hidrovias adjacentes Apoio a iniciativas de biodiversidade (flora local-fauna).
Além de compreender o contexto da organização, a ISO 1400l: 2015 exige que a organização entenda as necessidades e expectativas das partes interessadas. A organização precisa analisar quem são as partes interessadas relacionadas às suas obrigações de conformidade ambiental: clientes, vizinhos e comunidade. A organização pode, então, considerar o estabelecimento de requisitos de conformidade voluntários que possam afetar o meio ambiente. Uma vez que seja "voluntário", a organização precisa estar à altura desse compromisso. Os exemplos incluem considerações relativas ao ciclo de vida relacionadas com a eliminação do produto, rotulagem voluntária de produtos e compromissos ambientais para reduzir materiais não regulamentados (por exemplo, isopor) ou para manter terras ou cursos de água adjacentes. O contexto da organização e as expectativas das partes interessadas serão mais aplicáveis a grandes organizações de vários locais, com lançamentos aéreos relacionados ao transporte - impacto ambiental ou implicação de produtos de consumo. Muitas organizações sob a ISO 14001: 2004 consideraram gases de efeito estufa e mudanças climáticas como parte de seu compromisso com a prevenção da poluição. Fatores externos, como problemas legados (por exemplo, responsabilidade de contaminação do solo ou da água no local) devem sempre fazer parte da responsabilidade da organização de garantir que os controles ambientais estejam em vigor. No mínimo, a organização precisa apresentar provas documentadas de que o contexto da organização e as expectativas das partes interessadas foram consideradas ao estabelecer seu SGA.
A cláusula “Contexto da Organização” tem quatro sub cláusulas, isto é.
Cláusula 4.1 Entendendo a Organização e seu contexto.
A organização deve determinar questões externas e internas que sejam relevantes para o seu propósito e afeta sua capacidade de alcançar os resultados pretendidos de seu sistema de gestão ambiental. Tais questões devem incluir condições ambientais que sejam afetadas ou capazes de afetar a organização.
Aqui determine meios para descobrir ou estabelecer. O propósito da organização pode ser expresso por meio de declarações como a visão, a missão, as políticas e os objetivos de melhoria de uma organização. O termo "resultado pretendido" & # 8221; significa o que a organização pretende alcançar com a implementação do seu SGA, que inclui no mínimo: melhoria do desempenho ambiental, conformidade com obrigações de conformidade, cumprimento de objetivos ambientais e proteção do meio ambiente. Uma condição ambiental pode ser definida como o & # 8220 estado ou característica do ambiente determinado em um certo ponto. & # 8221; As condições ambientais podem incluir: clima, qualidade do ar, qualidade e disponibilidade da água e características de uso da terra de um local, níveis existentes de contaminação, poluição e degradação ambiental, disponibilidade de recursos naturais e biodiversidade, que podem afetar a organização ou ser afetados por a organização. Questões são aquelas características internas ou externas que podem afetar positiva ou negativamente a forma como a organização gerencia suas responsabilidades ambientais e a capacidade da organização de alcançar os resultados pretendidos do SGA. As questões externas podem incluir, entre outras: condições ambientais locais, regionais e globais, as opiniões ou posições das partes interessadas ou fatores culturais, sociais, políticos, legais, regulatórios, financeiros, tecnológicos e econômicos externos. As questões internas podem incluir, entre outros, o nível de compromisso e apoio da gerência, o contexto competitivo e a disponibilidade de recursos, incluindo conhecimento, processos e sistemas organizacionais e a natureza das atividades, produtos e serviços da organização, sua direção estratégica e corporativa. cultura.
Conforme o Anexo A (Orientação sobre o uso da norma ISO 14001: 2015) da norma ISO 14001: 2015, explica:
"A intenção aqui é fornecer uma compreensão conceitual de alto nível das questões importantes que podem afetar, positiva ou negativamente, a forma como a organização gerencia suas responsabilidades ambientais. questões são tópicos importantes para a organização, problemas para debate e discussão ou mudanças nas circunstâncias que afetam a capacidade da organização de alcançar os resultados pretendidos que estabelece para seu sistema de gestão ambiental.
Exemplos de questões internas e externas que podem ser relevantes para o contexto da organização incluem:
a) condições ambientais relacionadas ao clima, qualidade do ar, qualidade da água, uso da terra, contaminação existente, disponibilidade de recursos naturais e biodiversidade, que podem afetar o propósito da organização ou serem afetadas por seus aspectos ambientais;
b) as circunstâncias externas culturais, sociais, políticas, legais, regulatórias, financeiras, tecnológicas, econômicas, naturais e competitivas, sejam internacionais, nacionais, regionais ou locais;
c) as características internas ou condições da organização, tais como suas atividades, produtos e serviços, direção estratégica, cultura e capacidades (ou seja, pessoas, conhecimento, processos, sistemas).
Uma compreensão do contexto de uma organização é usada para estabelecer, implementar, manter e melhorar continuamente seu sistema de gestão ambiental. Os problemas internos e externos determinados podem resultar em riscos e oportunidades para a organização ou para o sistema de gerenciamento ambiental. A organização determina aqueles que precisam ser endereçados e gerenciados. & # 8221;
Cláusula 4, o & # 8220; Contexto da Organização & # 8221; requer:
uma compreensão conceptual e de alto nível do contexto da organização, uma compreensão das necessidades e expectativas das partes interessadas e a determinação do âmbito do SGA.
Cláusula 4.1, & # 8221; Entendendo a Organização e seu contexto & # 8221; solicita a determinação de questões internas e externas:
Isso é relevante para o propósito da organização; Isso afeta a capacidade da organização de atingir os resultados pretendidos do SGA; Isso está relacionado às condições ambientais que podem afetar a organização e que podem ser afetadas pela organização.
A cláusula 4.1 requer uma compreensão conceitual e de alto nível da organização e de seu contexto. Esse entendimento pode ser obtido a partir de uma determinação e análise de alto nível ou estratégica das questões internas e externas que são:
relevantes para o propósito da organização e que podem afetar a capacidade da organização de alcançar os resultados pretendidos do sistema de gestão.
Qualificador & # 8216; relevante para o propósito da organização & # 8217; é principalmente um conceito de gerenciamento de qualidade, mas em termos do EMS significa que quaisquer problemas que não sejam relevantes para o propósito das organizações podem ser prontamente descartados.
As questões que podem afetar a capacidade da organização de alcançar os resultados pretendidos do SGA são questões que podem aumentar ou impedir a obtenção desses resultados pretendidos. Isso é muito importante, pois a Cláusula 6.1.1 requer a determinação dos riscos e oportunidades que são colocados por essas questões. As questões capazes de melhorar a capacidade da organização de alcançar os resultados pretendidos do SGA são aproveitadas como oportunidades facilitadoras, enquanto aquelas capazes de impedir a obtenção dos resultados pretendidos são gerenciadas como riscos. A organização geralmente não tem controle sobre esses riscos. A mitigação e adaptação aos efeitos dessas condições externas são muitas vezes as únicas estratégias de resposta disponíveis para as organizações. Observe também que o termo „efeito‟ é usado neste padrão para se referir às possíveis mudanças causadas por esses problemas, enquanto as mudanças causadas pelas atividades, produtos e serviços da organização ao meio ambiente são referidas como “impactos . Esses problemas podem se originar dentro da organização e também fora da organização. As questões que se originam dentro da organização podem variar de assuntos como comprometimento de liderança, cultura organizacional e disponibilidade de recursos, como habilidades, infraestrutura, informações, etc. Essas questões que se originam sem a organização podem ser causadas por condições ambientais como bem como as dimensões reguladoras, políticas, infra-estruturais, de prestação de serviços, sociais e culturais nas quais a organização opera. As condições ambientais externas que podem afetar a organização incluem fatores impeditivos, como a mudança climática (em escala global), a disponibilidade de recursos naturais. recursos, condições climáticas, inundações, incêndios e eventos sísmicos (em escala local), e aprimoramento de características como a localização em relação aos recursos naturais e mercados. Estar situado fora das zonas de impacto de desastres naturais ou existir em um sistema sociopolítico estável e democrático com uma força de trabalho qualificada e confiável pode oferecer oportunidades que podem ser aproveitadas pelas organizações.
Questões internas e externas.
As questões contempladas na cláusula 4.1 também incluem os efeitos nas condições ambientais causadas pela organização. Esses efeitos são, na verdade, sinônimos dos impactos ambientais causados pelas atividades de uma organização, conforme contemplado na cláusula 6.1.2. Se a identificação dos aspectos e impactos ambientais forem exigidos nos termos da cláusula 6.1.2, a questão é o que é então exigido em termos da cláusula 4.1? A determinação do efeito da organização nas condições ambientais difere da identificação de aspectos e impactos ambientais na medida em que a primeira é realizada em um nível alto, estratégico ou conceitual, enquanto a segunda é uma análise mais detalhada e de nível operacional.
A saída da cláusula 4.1 inclui uma visão conceitual e de alto nível de:
Questões externas que são relevantes para o propósito da organização e que afetam sua capacidade de alcançar os resultados pretendidos do SGA; Problemas internos que são relevantes para o propósito da organização e que afetam sua capacidade de alcançar os resultados pretendidos do SGA; Condições ambientais que são afetadas pela organização; e Condições ambientais que podem afetar a organização.
Exemplo de problemas internos e externos.
Exemplo: Uma empresa familiar, fabricando dependências de madeira para uso doméstico e comercial. O objetivo da organização é fornecer aos edifícios secionais de varejo e sob medida para indivíduos e organizações.
Transporte e custos / serviço de montagem do local Cultura dentro da organização / questões de governança e sucessão Oportunidades de mudar de um produto para outro, por exemplo, locação e manutenção de edifícios Relacionamento com a cadeia de suprimentos (rastreabilidade da madeira etc.) Potencial sustentável de substituição de materiais (produtos / embalagens) Consumo de materiais (reciclados, duráveis, reutilizáveis, recicláveis, biodegradáveis) Gerenciamento de energia Desperdício de matéria-prima / disposição de resíduos / mercado em desenvolvimento para subprodutos Estrutura da organização Papéis dentro da organização Estratégia de crescimento dos negócios Retorno do investimento Qualidade do produto / serviço Investimentos Solvabilidade Dívida e juros Passivo (ex. Público) Comércio Justo Comércio ético Disponibilidade de mão de obra confiável, qualificada e competente Estabilidade da força de trabalho / RH práticas Impacto da sindicalização Níveis de treinamento de funcionários Contratos contratuais com clientes Condições de pagamento de clientes Solvência de clientes Expansão da base de clientes Fluxo de caixa Força global de negócios para suportar necessidades de financiamento Resiliência de infraestrutura Relacionamento com investidores (incluindo Banco) Classificação de crédito e disponibilidade e Segurança no local e no site do cliente Design for Environment.
Políticas, econômicas, sociais, tecnológicas, legais e regulatórias Resiliência da cadeia de fornecimento Sensibilidade do mercado à perda de habitat e questões de biodiversidade Desempenho econômico geral no país Planos econômicos para o futuro Condições do mercado (demográfico do cliente / confiança do mercado etc.) Expectativa do cliente Padronização e certificação dentro do indústria Impactos da volatilidade do clima Mudanças no ambiente local (desenvolvimento / designação de áreas de Conservação / desenvolvimento de defesas contra inundações, etc.) Preços de combustíveis / matérias-primas & # 8211; pressões internacionais, pressões do mercado interno regime de tributação do governo, etc. Regulamento dentro da indústria em geral As associações comerciais e os poderes de lobby Impacto sobre os vizinhos.
Cláusula 4.2 Entendendo as necessidades e expectativas das partes interessadas.
A organização deve determinar as partes interessadas que são relevantes para o sistema de gestão ambiental e suas necessidades e expectativas relevantes (ou seja, requisitos). A organização também deve determinar que essas necessidades e expectativas se tornem suas obrigações de conformidade.
Uma "parte interessada" # 8221; (também conhecido como "stakeholder" & # 8221;) é qualquer indivíduo ou organização que possa afetar, ser afetado por, ou se perceber afetado pelas decisões ou atividades de sua organização. As partes interessadas podem incluir, por exemplo, clientes, comunidades, fornecedores, reguladores, ONGs, investidores, funcionários e sindicatos. A frase “obrigações de conformidade” substitui a expressão “requisitos legais e outros requisitos que a organização subscreve” utilizados nas edições anteriores desta Norma. A alteração é considerada mais simples de entender e não altera a intenção do padrão anterior, ou seja, a ISO 14001: 2004.
Conforme o Anexo A (Orientação sobre o uso da norma ISO 14001: 2015) da norma ISO 14001: 2015, explica:
& # 8220; Espera-se que uma organização obtenha um entendimento geral (ou seja, de alto nível, não detalhado) das necessidades e expectativas expressas das partes interessadas internas e externas que foram determinadas pela organização como relevantes. A organização considera o conhecimento adquirido ao determinar quais dessas necessidades e expectativas ele tem ou deseja cumprir, ou seja, suas obrigações de conformidade.
No caso de uma parte interessada que se perceba afetada pelas decisões ou atividades da organização relacionadas ao desempenho ambiental. a organização considera as necessidades e expectativas relevantes que são divulgadas ou divulgadas pela parte interessada à organização.
Os requisitos das partes interessadas não são necessariamente requisitos da organização. Alguns requisitos da parte interessada refletem necessidades e expectativas que são obrigatórias porque foram incorporadas a leis, regulamentos, permissões e licenças por decisão governamental ou mesmo judicial. A organização pode decidir voluntariamente concordar ou adotar outros requisitos das partes interessadas (por exemplo, celebrando uma relação contratual. Assinando uma iniciativa voluntária). Uma vez que a organização as adota, elas se tornam requisitos organizacionais (isto é, obrigações de conformidade) e são levadas em consideração no planejamento do sistema de gestão ambiental. Uma análise mais detalhada de suas obrigações de conformidade é realizada nas cláusulas 6.1.3 e 8243;
Esta subcláusula exige que as partes interessadas relevantes para o SGA sejam determinadas. Este é um avanço em relação à versão de 2004 da norma, na qual a determinação das partes interessadas não era explicitamente exigida. A interpretação geral do requisito de 2015 é que a evidência dessa determinação é necessária. Uma vez que as partes interessadas tenham sido identificadas, a organização é obrigada a determinar suas necessidades e expectativas. Uma vez que todas as necessidades e expectativas das partes interessadas tenham sido determinadas, a organização precisa tomar uma decisão sobre quais dessas necessidades e expectativas serão adotadas e gerenciadas. Uma vez adotadas, essas necessidades e expectativas tornam-se obrigações de conformidade que exigem gerenciamento pela organização. Responder e atender a essas obrigações de conformidade adotadas são obrigatórios. Quais são os requisitos da sua organização em relação às partes interessadas?
Determine quem são as partes interessadas relevantes para o seu sistema de gestão ambiental (EMS). A propósito, uma organização que "percebe ser afetada" por suas decisões ou atividades obviamente precisa tornar essa percepção conhecida para sua organização antes de ser listada como uma parte interessada. Seria uma boa prática criar um "registro de interessados" # 8221 ;. Determine as necessidades e expectativas relevantes dessas partes interessadas Decida quais dessas necessidades e expectativas devem ser as obrigações de conformidade & # 8221 ;. Quaisquer necessidades e expectativas que sejam obrigatórias (por exemplo, obrigações legais, requisitos contratuais ou resultados de decisões judiciais) são automaticamente obrigações de conformidade. Além dessas, apenas necessidades e expectativas que você considera relevantes e que você escolhe adotar se tornam obrigações de conformidade. Assim, você pode optar por ignorar algumas necessidades e expectativas da parte interessada não obrigatória. Disponibilizar aos interessados o & # 8220; escopo & # 8221; do EMS (isto é, as atividades da organização que estão incluídas no EMS), e a política ambiental. Assegure-se de que a comunicação com as partes interessadas atenda às suas necessidades, seja compreensível para elas e permita que elas participem. Mantenha registros de tais comunicações. Fornecer, para as partes interessadas apropriadas, informações relevantes e treinamento relacionado à preparação e resposta a emergências. E esteja ciente das necessidades e expectativas das partes interessadas ao desenvolver ou revisar os aspectos ambientais. No caso de uma parte interessada “perceber-se” ser afetada pelas decisões ou atividades de sua organização relacionadas ao desempenho ambiental, sua organização deve considerar as necessidades e expectativas relevantes que são divulgadas ou divulgadas pela parte interessada, e então fazer uma decisão sobre a sua adoção.
CLASSIFICANDO AS PARTES INTERESSADAS E SEUS RELACIONAMENTOS.
A simples listagem de fornecedores, clientes, comunidades, etc. não é suficiente para atender aos requisitos da norma, ou seja, entender as necessidades e expectativas das partes interessadas relevantes. Torne as informações mais significativas, agrupando as partes interessadas com base em seu relacionamento com a organização. Isso é aconselhado na ISO 14004 - Diretrizes de Implementação EMS, que fornece exemplos de partes interessadas com base em seu relacionamento com a organização, por meio de:
Algumas categorias podem conter subcategorias, que exigem uma abordagem de gerenciamento diferente. Por exemplo, os clientes podem incluir contas-chave com necessidades e expectativas diferentes para clientes transacionais. Agora você sabe quem são suas partes interessadas, é hora de identificar suas necessidades e expectativas que são relevantes para o seu sistema de gestão. A palavra operativa aqui é relevante. Dependendo do tamanho e da complexidade da sua organização, é muito provável que você ou seus colegas tenham uma boa noção das partes interessadas com as quais você tem contato regular. No entanto, vale a pena formalizar esse conhecimento e, quando necessário, confirmar as premissas e fechar as lacunas de conhecimento com a pesquisa. A escala da pesquisa depende novamente do tamanho e complexidade de sua organização. Por exemplo:
Uma empresa de jardinagem de duas pessoas pode concluir a pesquisa dentro de alguns telefonemas para clientes, fornecedores, conselhos locais, etc. Uma empresa farmacêutica multinacional pode exigir uma série de métodos de pesquisa (quantitativos e qualitativos, primários e secundários).
Isso relaciona duas importantes variáveis de relacionamento:
Quanto interesse eles têm em suas decisões e atividades? Isso pode ser interpretado como a força de sua relevância. Quanto poder ou influência eles têm sobre suas decisões e atividades? Isso pode ser interpretado como seu significado ou risco.
Traçar partes interessadas ajuda a priorizar o esforço necessário para atender às suas necessidades e expectativas:
Processo para mapeamento de partes interessadas.
Identifique as partes interessadas relevantes. Compile uma lista categorizada de suas partes interessadas. Determine suas necessidades e expectativas. Use métodos de pesquisa diferentes conforme necessário para confirmar seu conhecimento de cada grupo ou parte interessada significativa. Classifique-os em termos de poder e interesse: considere sua força de interesse e nível de influência sobre suas decisões e ações. Plote-os na Matriz de Poder / Interesse para determinar sua classificação. Definir objetivos e prioridades. Define what results are necessary to deliver to those relevant interested parties to reduce the risk that their needs and expectations are not met. .
You should end up with something like this example – but create a framework that suits your own needs:
Example of interested parties and potential needs/expectations( – to be verified in practice):
Example :A family owned company, manufacturing wooden outbuildings for domestic and commercial use. The organization’s purpose is to provide to both retail and bespoke sectional buildings to individuals and organizations.(same example as taken previously from Clause 4.1 Understanding the Organization and its context )
External Interested parties and potential needs/expectations.
Internal Interested Parties and potential needs/expectations.
4.3. Determining the scope of the environmental management system.
The organization should determine the boundaries and applicability of the environméital management system to establish its scope. When determining this scope, the organization should consider its organizational units, functions, physical boundaries, activities, product, services , authority and ability to exercise control and influence. The organization should also considers its external and internal issues referred and their compliance obligations.
As per Annex A ( Guidance on use of ISO 14001:2015 standard ) of ISO 14001:2015 standard it further explains:
“The scope of the environmental management system is intended to clarify the physical and organizational boundaries to which the environmental management system applies, especially if the organization is a part of a larger organization. An organization has the freedom and flexibility to define its boundaries. it may choose to implement this international Standard throughout the entire organization, or only in specific parts of the organization, as long as the top management for those part has authority to establish an environmental management system. In setting the scope, the credibility of the environmental management system depends upon the choice of organizational boundaries. The organization considers the extent of control or influence that it can exert over activities, products and services considering a life cycle perspective. Scoping should not be used to exclude activities, products. services, or facilities that have or can have significant environmental aspects. or to evade its compliance obligations. The scope is a factual and representative statement of the organization’s operations included within its environmental management system boundaries that should not mislead interested parties. Once the organization asserts it conforms to this international Standard, the requirement to make the scope statement available to interested parties applies.”
Once the scope is defined. all activities, products and services of the organization within that scope need to be included in the environmental management system. The scope shall be maintained as documented information and be available to interested parties. Making the scope available to interested parties is a passive duty as the requirement is not to actively distribute the documented scope of the EMS. The requirement to make the EMS scope available to interested parties is an attempt to counter concerns that organisations misrepresent the actual scope of their EMSs.
An example of how a scope could be derived.
1. Organization’s purpose and strategic direction.
Purpose: As one of India’s leading providers for sheet fed and heat set lithographic printing services, our reason for’being’ is a combination of our vision, mission, and values. What is our vision? To become the most trusted provider for print services within India and Europe. What is our mission? To expand our operations by consistently meeting customers’ expectations, and our legal requirements; which includes the enhancement of customer satisfaction, and protection of our environment. through the effective application of our processes for continual improvement and environmental performance. What ane our values? Sustainable business , social economic and environmental impacts, responsible governance and equal opportunity. These are re-enforced through sustainability principles and workforce integrity throughout all business operations. Cooperation and collaboration are expected norms within the organization’s management, with recognition provided for all through regular appraisals. We encourage and embrace any values which support the behaviors that employees cherish. Strategic Direction: To open a new office in Germany and New Delhi this year bringing together the technology and expertise in India with the market needs of Europe and beyond. To implement and gain accredited certification to ISO9001 and ISO14001 in these new offices, within a year of the offices opening. To employ a motivated workforce that will embrace the organization values, and complement the cooperation and collaboration needed to achieve the effective application of our processes for continual improvement.
2. Organization’s intended outcome(s) of its EMS.
To provide value for the environment, our organization, and our interested parties To enhance our environmental performance To fulfill our compliance obligations; and To achieve our environmental objectives.
Specific to our organization:
A more sustainable product, with the smallest possible carbon and resource footprint; Financial benefit through the effective application of improvement and operational processes Effective control/influence over interested parties, within our product life cycle, thereby improving our overall environmental performance.
3. External issues.
Honey Printers Pvt. Ltd is situated in Khopate, a medium sized town of some 60,000 inhabitants. The Good Prospect factory is a three floor complex that comprises both the print works and offices of Honey Printers, taking up nearly 50,000sq feet of space in total. The rest of the site is shared with other office based companies who occupy the remaining floors of the complex which consists of a 16 storey high rise building. (Issue: Noise vibration odour interested party complaints.) The entire complex is situated west of the tunnel, just off the main Uran-panvel Road, overlooking JNPT Harbour, a major trading port area. Like most places on the island, its position is tightly constrained by neighboring buildings in a mixed business and residential area. (Issue: Carbon footprint increase and contribution to traffic congestion and emissions through vehicle fleet noise, odour, interested party complaints)
The company operates a prescribed process using regulated substances in accordance with a license issued under Regional Regulations. (Issue: Legal Compliance) In addition it is required to comply with a discharge permit from the MPCB EPD via the Water Pollution Control Ordinance in respect of process wastewater discharges to receiving water bodies. (Issue: Legal Compliance)
MPCB EPD regularly inspects operators, responds to complaints and, after an uncertain enforcement record in the late 90’s, has a strong and growing record of successful prosecution. (Issue: Fines and legal cost) Navi Mumbai is generally very hilly and particularly so in the Northern area where the Panvel sits on a relatively narrow ledge of rock between hillsides and the sea. In common with the rest of the island, the underlying geology of the site comprises volcanic rock and granite. (Issue: Potential flood zone, raised sea level from Climate Change) To the rear of the site, the Sai Laxmi Park acts as home to the Upper and Lower reservoirs (capacity 266 million imperial gallons/1,210,000m 3 ). A nature trail runs through the tops of the hills immediately overlooking the site. (Issue: continuity of process water supply, VOC emissions and effect on biodiversity)
In addition, to the front of the site, the concrete flyover feeds the tunnel, the main access point to the area known as ‘MHADA colony’ a prime residential location. (Issue: odour complaints from influential interested party/interested parties) The nearby JNPT Harbours continue to be the focus of development for the Navi Mumbai Harbour Area Treatment Scheme (NMATS) into which, traditionally, most of Sewage and effluent had been ejected. However, the declining quality of the marine environment prompted an urgent programme lead and funded by, the State Government. (Issue: Contribution to local water pollution, legal compliance) Navi Mumbai can experience very heavy rainstorms during Monsoon. The annual average rainfall is about 245 cm.. During particularly heavy rainstorms, flooding in the rural low-lying areas and natural flood-plains in the northern part of the territory and in parts of the older urban areas may occur. The Panvel is a formally identified flooding hotspot. (issue: Flooding)
In recent years, the company has had an increase in requests from customers for environmental information concerning the company’s products and activities, particularly in the areas of paper sourcing, energy use and CO 2 emissions from transport. Key customers appear to be implementing procedures to include environmental performance in supplier selection criteria, and Honey Printers Pvt. Ltd, has been unable to respond adequately to requests for information. (Issue: Interested party complaints, evaluation of compliance with customer requirements) Guidance documents on environmental responsibilities have been published by relevant local industrial trade associations and the Maharashtra Pollution control Board (MPCB) and the company is beginning to make use of those. (Issue: Interested party complaints, legal compliance) In response to international market pressures and to ensure that the company’s interested party expectations were being met, the management of the company authorized the implementation of an Environmental Management System. The company decided not to acquire third party certification of the system. (Issue: Loss of interested party confidence, demonstrable corporate responsibility open to question)
The company was formed 40 years ago and has always operated at the Good Prospect Factory. Early production focused on servicing local and regional customers. Original print runs (number of copies printed) were high due to the fact that even relatively small jobs were printed in two or three different language versions, including English, Hindi and Marathi. (Issue: Contaminated land from previous operations.) With increasing demand for short run, lower volume and better quality printing, Honey Printers Pvt. Ltd invested heavily in new sheet fed lithographic printing equipment to extend their printing capabilities into the international market for ‘on demand’ and bespoke catalogue printing. (Issue: Higher resource use from cleaning between high number of low print runs, high potential emissions and hazardous waste from solvent based cleaning materials larger carbon footprint from international distribution of finished product greater concern on ROI from earlier technology investment leads to less funding for environmental projects )
4. Internal issues.
Honey Printers Pvt. Ltd prints, collates and binds publications for a variety of customers. It also arranges transportation of the finished publications either direct to customers’ warehouses (due to the lack of bulk storage on their own site), or straight to the client’s target audience in India and the rest of India through a direct mailing system. (Issue: Energy use, resource and material use) The site is taken up mainly by the Good Prospect Factory of which the bottom floor is entirely occupied by the primary print production facility (the 4sheet fed lithographic presses as well as associated paper holding bays, ink stores). There is very little space to spare and stores on site are kept to a minimum, relying on just in time delivery of materials. (Issue: Energy use resource and material use hazardous substances, carbon management) There is also a bindery area comprising 4 saddle stitch and 4 perfect binder lines where signatures (individual pages of the publications) from the presses are collated together and bound. A small holding bay also exists for finished publications. (Issue: Energy use, air emissions resource and material use)
The remainder contains the following operations:
2 nd floor; Pre press preparation area (scanners, proofers and plate managers) secondary print area (2 high-speed photocopying machines) Includes a small area for General Stores. There is also a Direct Mail Unit, including stores for packaging, a small area for progress checking. (Issue: Energy use resource and material use hazardous substances)
3 rd floor Offices for Production Administration, Sales and Purchasing, Executive functions, Staff Restaurant, and a separate testing laboratory for checking inks and adhesives. (Issue: Enerqy use resource/material use and hazardous substances) The site employs a total of 62 people, with 5 working mostly off-site as Sales Representatives. Nineteen people work in the administrative section which comprises sales, orders, purchasing and accounts. Operational staff work on a 3 shift, 24-hour day, 6 days a week system. Shift hours are: 6 am — 2 pm, 2 pm — 10 pm, and 10 pm – 6 am. (Issue: Energy use, resource and material use) Occasionally work is carried out over the weekends, mainly for maintenance or for direct mail campaigns but sometimes to accommodate extra work for urgent, complex or large orders. (Issue: Energy use, interested party complaints about noise and vibration)
The company already operates Quality and Health and Safety Management Systems and where appropriate, environmental controls have been integrated into these existing systems. The company started developing their Environmental Management System last year. The Facilities Manager was charged with the responsibility of implementing the system by the Board; he has delegated the responsibility on a day to day basis to the new post of Head of Safety, Health Environment and Quality (SHEQ), created six months ago. (Issue: resources to support system) The project has involved other managers including both the Operations Manager and the Accounts and Purchasing manager. The Facilities Manager’s previous environmental experience relates only to health and safety, and he has only recently had responsibility for environment added to his job speciﬁcation. (Issue: resource and training required to maintain competence) The Head of SHEQ has overall responsibility for maintaining the environmental manual as part of the integrated environment, health and safety and quality system. He wrote the environmental manual and general procedures on environmental management, whilst the Facilities Manager, aided by the Operations Manager was responsible for the more technically based documentation. (Issue: loss of staff and associated competence) The site conducted an initial review (12 months prior to audit), and has since developed an environmental policy and environmental manual containing programmes and procedures for managing the site’s operations.
Operations at the site include preparation for the presses where customer’s artwork is received via electronic transfer of ﬁles, though special artwork can sometimes require hard copy delivery. (Issue: Energy use, GHG release, resource and material use, hazardous substances, potential for spillage and associated contamination of land or process water and storm water discharges.) This information is converted into images on cellulose ﬁlm in the prepress area. The images are stabilized using ﬁxer and developer before the image is transferred to aluminium plates by high-energy UV rays. Typically this equipment uses 2,500 watts for operation (Issues: Energy use, resource and material use, hazardous substances and associated waste and water discharges) Plates are then cleaned in a sink with chemicals and taken to the mu|ti—unit print presses, where printing ink is applied to the paper substrate via the aluminium plates to produce the printed image (signatures). (Issue: Energy use, resource and material use, hazardous substances and associated waste and water discharges) The inks can be premixed or are applied as standard colours to different plates to produce the right co|our. This is checked against standard specifications. (Issue: hazardous substances and associated waste and water discharges) The transfer process is carried out using fountain solution, which is produced by dosing mains water with fountain solution chemical to get the desired dilution. Surface coating of publication covers is sometimes requested, and this is applied during the printing process. (Issue: resource use (water) hazardous substances and associated waste and water discharges) Bindery operations are where the ﬁnished elements are collated together and bound either by inserting metal wire staples or glued (perfect bound) together. The ﬁnished publications are bound and shrink wrapped onto wooden pallets prior to shipping to the customer (Issue: Packaging hazardous substances and associated waste and water discharges) Feedstocks mainly comprise cellulose ﬁlms, aluminium plates and paper. Liquid raw materials include printing inks, binding adhesives; heat-seal coatings, cold-seal coatings and solvents. (Issue: Resource use) Drummed solvents are dispensed into 25 litre containers for internal transport to process areas. Inks are delivered in half tonne mini-bulk tanks and are off-loaded in the ink storage area, at the rear of the building. The inks are transferred manually to the sheet fed printing presses, but the latest line can be fed from an integral reservoir. Other coating materials are delivered in either 25 or 200 litre drums, directly to the primary Print Shop room. (Issue: Packaging, hazardous substances and associated waste and water discharges) Inks from bulk storage tanks and smaller containers are blended on-site to produce “ﬁnished” printing ink and adhesives, originally premixed in a separate Mixing Room, are now mixed in a small area next to the main presses to make efﬁcient use of the main air , emission abatement equipment ducting that was installed (ﬁve years prior to audit). Consumption of inks is estimated at 35 tonnes per month. Emissions from pre-mixing operations are vented directly to atmosphere. (Issue: Packaging air emissions, hazardous substances and associated waste and water discharges) Printing and coating is carried out in the Print Shop, which is split into four distinct work areas; sheet fed lithographic presses take up the entire space. Two high-speed photocopying machines sit together on the second ﬂoor as a self-contained ‘print on demand’ unit. (Issue: Energy use, hazardous substances, resource use and associated waste and water discharges) Printing operations involve the application of materials with relatively high solvent content to the surface of a moving plate or ﬁlm. Rapid solvent evaporation is achieved by the movement of heated air across the plate and sheet surface, which results in solvent laden air being emitted from the system. (Issue: Energy use, hazardous substances, air emissions) All application of printing inks and other wet materials is carried out in the Print Shop area and associated cleaning rooms. Volatiles are either captured by the abatement equipment in the Print Shop area or vented direct to atmosphere by the building’s forced ventilation system. (Issue: water discharges, air emissions) Total solvent losses to atmosphere from pre-mixing and printing processes were estimated to be about 0.5 tonnes per month prior to a change of ink supplier and product. (Issue: water discharges, air emissions) Cleaning of printing equipment is carried out in a self-contained, solvent emissions ducted wash room adjacent to the Print Shop. The plant is solvent based, and uses 1 tonne per year of ethyl acetate and ethanol. An underground sump collects waste residues from the cleaning process and is emptied bi-annually. (Issue: water discharges, air emissions, contaminated land from underground tank). In addition, there is an ultrasonic cleaning plant, which uses aqueous caustic solution for roller cleaning and ancillary cleaning. Twenty-ﬁve litres of ethyl acetate are used per application, which is thought to be captured by the abatement ﬁltering system, but may also ultimately be lost to atmosphere. Both sets of plant are themselves cleaned periodically with cleaning liquids (solvent and caustic), being fully replaced with fresh chemicals. (Issue: Energy use, hazardous substances, water discharges and air emissions) Finished goods are packaged manually in the Finishing Department. Due to the restricted size of the storage area, the site operates its own distribution service and owns ten 7.5 tonne trucks. In addition some delivery is subcontracted to a Local carrier which may move ﬁnished goods to a leased warehouse in Indore for further distribution. (Issue: Energg use, vehicle emissions) The Testing Laboratory employs a full-time chemist who carries out sample testing of incoming inks. Small quantities of numerous different solvents, inks and other chemicals are used to test different ink formulations, and are stored in a dedicated storage room within the laboratory. (Issue: Hazardous substances, spillage, waste disposal and water discharge).
Hazardous wastes are generated from primary production, laboratory operations and from cleaning processes. Waste inks and solvents are stored in a bulk container for off-site recycling. So|vent-based inks are ﬁltered on-site to produce a solvent waste stream which is recycled and a solid waste stream which is disposed of as hazardous waste. (Issue: Iiquid and solid, hazardous and general waste) Waste cooling waters from the printing lines are discharged to a foul sewer. The area’s drains are to be included in the second phase of the Navi Mumbai Area Treatment Scheme (NMATS) under them management of the MPCB EPD. They currently discharge direct to the harbor via a 1 kilometer undersea outfall pipe. (Issue: water discharges, current level of marine pollution) Stormwater surface drains are currently blocked in the solvent storage area and the site has constructed an underground sump to collect local rainwater ﬂooding this area. The sump discharges to the storm water system, which in turn discharges directly to the harbor via the area outfall pipe already mentioned. (Issue; ﬂooding) Volatile organic compound (VOC) emissions from the pre-mixing operations, printing and (occasionally) binding activities are mostly vented to atmosphere through abatement ducting, fans and ﬁlters which have been retroﬁtted in the print shop area. Fugitive emissions include those from manual transfer of solvents and inks, ink mixing, adhesives, from the bindery emissions from the test laboratory and those from the ultrasonic cleaning plant. (Issue: Air emissions)
The site has received complaints from the public and other local businesses concerning both noise and odours. In the past six months, over eight complaints have been received from four different sources regarding noise, and approximately seven complaints have been made about strong odours from four different sources, two of which also complained about noise problems. (Issue: Interested Party complaints) The site’s planning/land use permission contains limits on environmental noise emissions between the hours of 17.00 and 08.00, of 45 dB(A).The local Environmental Inspector has conducted noise monitoring and has recorded an exceedance of this limit on two out of 14 occasions during the regulated time period. The local governmental administration has therefore requested that the site implements environmental noise reduction measures where practical. Response to this request in ongoing. (Issue: Legal Compliance) The site is developing a programme to implement the licence requirements to manage and reduce emissions of VOCs to the atmosphere. This is being monitored carefully by the MPCB, who are keen to ensure regulatory requirements are met, and that public complaints are reduced. (Issue: Legal Compliance)
The site had a small spill of toluene to the stormwater drain approximately one month ago, when a drum was knocked over which was not sealed. This was immediately reported to the authorities.
4. Interested Parties and needs and expectations of Interested parties.
Needs and expectations of External interested parties.
Identiﬁcation of applicable statutory and regulatory requirements for the environmental aspects under our control/ inﬂuence, understanding of the requirements, application within our EMS, update/maintenance of them, compliance to them, prompt responses to investigations and enquiries.
Demonstrable ISO 14001 Conformance/Legal compliance Value for money (esp. for premium ‘eco’ products) Maintained levels of quality (esp. for ‘eco’ products) Environmentally sustainable product Socially and environmentally responsible.
Product information with regard to end of life recycling/disposal (where appropriate), other relevant environmental information Recyclable packaging.
Legal compliance Absence of pollution incidents Meeting policy commitments Socially and environmentally responsible.
Prompt reporting incidents/changes in circumstances Demonstrable ISO 14001 conformance Evidence of non-ﬁnancial (i. e. environmental) risk management.
Fire Safety provides for ﬁre water run-off etc. Accurate inventory of hazardous materials Regulatory compliance Regular drills for ﬂooding/spillage/site evacuation.
Fast, accurate information concerning environmentally related impacts/incidents to the local/national press Openness/transparency to everyone.
Demonstrable ISO 14001 Conformance Continuity of product supply Waste and cost reduction opportunities.
Social/reputational responsible Environmental related Health and safety compliances.
Meeting repayment terms Compliance with loan conditions Good risk management Legal compliance Absence of pollution incidents/cleanup costs/public liabilities.
Absence of noise/odor/vibration incidents.
Adherence to best practice and contractual agreements.
Needs and expectations of Internal interested parties.
Good environmental reputational image Wider focus than just profit Training and support for all Environmentally/occupationally safe working conditions Continuity of employment Opportunities for dialogue/ improvement/changes.
Clear statement of environmental requirements in tenders/contracts Consistent approach to contract variations involving environmental practices Adherence to agreements Level playing ﬁeld for all environmental requirements.
Adherence to agreements Good environmental risk management.
Terms and conditions for workers – environmental related Health and Safety Employee consultation on work related changes.
Financial beneﬁt, legal compliance/avoidance of ﬁnes, reputational gain – corporate social responsibility (CSR), enhanced corporate governance (CG)
5. Compliance obligations.
All the above will become compliance obligations with the exceptions of:
Media (All) This will be re-visited once the EMS is operational Customers( 4. Environmentally sustainable product) , we are striving for this but this will not become a compliance obligation yet Distributors ( 2. Continuity of product supply) , we cannot guarantee Neighbors (1.Absence of noise/odour/vibration incidents) , we cannot guarantee: absence of noise/odour/vibration incidents but a compliance obligation will be reductions where ‘reasonably practical’ Staff (3. Training and support for all and 5.Continuity of employment) we cannot guarantee, depends on budget etc. Contractors/Suppliers (4.Level playing field for ali environmental requirement) , we cannot guarantee at the present.
6. Organizational unit(s), function(s), physical boundaries.
‘Honey Printers Pvt. Ltd’ operates from its sites in Panvel, Navi Mumbai and soon in Pune and New Delhi. No sites are/will be shared with other organizations and each site has a clearly deﬁned boundary/demarcation to their neighbors. At each site the organizational unit(s)/ function(s) comprises of: Ofﬁce administration (ﬁnance, sales, order processing, Support functions, HR, Quality, IT, Environmental, OH&S, general management), Design of customer’s artwork. At the Panvel, Navi mumbai HK Isite only, Development (preparation), Production (Printing signatures), Production (pressrooms), Production (bindery) and ﬁnal Dispatch of printed materials (Delivery).
7. Activities, products and services of the organization.
The design, development, production and delivery of a range of high quality and environmentally sensitive printing solutions. Print work providers for sheet fed and heat set lithographic servicesand can be prepared on a bespoke basis, or chosen from a range of standardized offerings. Delivery is provided through outsourced transportation services.
8. Authority and ability to exercise control and inﬂuence.
Full authority and ability to control is possible over our main printing sites in Navi Mumbai, Pune and New Delhi, and a strong authority and ability to inﬂuence over our outsourced transportation services. We have a strong authority, and great ability to inﬂuence our paper sourcing suppliers’ environmental performance and that of our inks procurement suppliers’ environmental performance. However, we have little authority and limited ability to inﬂuenceunused stock policies from our customers. Our current levels of inﬂuence over our customer’s choice of environmentally benign raw materials are not high, though we are seeking to increase this through a change in policy in sales contract negotiations. Finally, we have no authority and marginal ability to influence ﬁnal disposal of our product.
9. Determined scope.
The scope of ‘Honey Printers Pvt. Ltd’ Environmental Management System applies to the design, development, production and delivery of a range of high quality and environmentally sensitive printing solutions from its site in Hong Kong, with a planned roll out programme to include our proposed Germany and Beijing ofﬁces. Print work providers for sheet fed and heat set lithographic services and can be prepared on a bespoke basis, or chosen from a range of standardized offerings. It covers the management of business activities that support these products and services (including transportation outsourcing) and the influences (where possible) of any significant aspects that occurs in its life cycle e. g procurement, unused stock and final disposal.
4.4 Environmental management system.
The organization must establish, implement, maintain and continually improvement its environmental management system, which includes its process and their interactions in accordance with the requirements of this international standards so as to achieve its intended outcome which includes enhancing its environmental performance. While establishing and maintaining its environmental management system the organization should consider the knowledge gained while determining its external and internal issues and needs and expectations of interested parties.
As per Annex A ( Guidance on use of ISO 14001:2015 standard ) of ISO 14001:2015 standard it further explains:
The organization retains authority and accountability to decide how it fulfils the requirements of this international Standard. including the level of detail and extent to which it:
a) establishes one or more processes to have confidence that it is controlled, carried out as planned and achieve the desired results;
b) integrates environmental management system requirements into its various business processes such as design and development, procurement, human resources, sales and marketing;
c) incorporates issues associated with the context of the organization and interested party requirements within its environmental management system.
if this international Standard is implemented for a specific part of an organization, policies, processes and documented information developed by other parts of the organization can be used to meet the requirements of this. international Standard, provided they are applicable to that specific part.
ISO 14001:2015-Clause 4.4 states that the organization shall establish, document, implement, maintain and continually improve an EMS, the requirements which encompasses all the requirements of the Standard. The words used in the Standard are ‘establish’ and ‘maintain’. There is no guidance as to the level or depth of establishment or what evidence is required to show maintenance. However, it can be taken to mean that there must be some objective evidence of the system being in place and reviewed and revised. Such review processes can take the form of monthly progress meetings, corrective actions from audits and of course audits themselves. Audits are evidence of reviewing; that is, asking the question: ‘Are the planned activities of the organization occurring in practice?’ It would be very prudent for an implementing organization to offer evidence of one or two audits of a significant impact over a period of 2 to 3 months. An improvement in the environmental management system is intended to show an improvement in environmental performance. The organization is expected to periodically review and evaluate its environmental management system to identify opportunities for improvement and their implementation. The rate, extent and timescale of this continual improvement process is to be determined by the organization in the light of economic and other circumstances. An organization is required to.
establish an appropriate environmental policy, identify the environmental aspects arising from the organization’s past, existing or planned activities, products and services, in order to determine the environmental impacts of significance, identify applicable legal requirements and other requirements to which the organization subscribes, identify priorities and set appropriate environmental objectives and targets, establish a structure and a programmed to implement the policy and achieve objectives and meet targets, facilitate planning, control, monitoring, preventive and corrective actions, auditing and review activities to ensure both that the policy is complied with and that the environmental management system remains appropriate, and be capable of adapting to changing circumstances.
This sub-clause, like its predecessor, makes provision for the entire life cycle of an EMS, ranging from its establishment to its continual improvement. The third revision adds the processes and interactions between the elements of the EMS. The EMS shall be established and managed to ensure that the intended outcomes of the EMS are achieved and environmental performance is enhanced. The focus of the third revision of the EMS on the enhancement of environmental performance should be noted, as the first two revision of the standard required the improvement of the management system, which means that the enhancement of environmental performance is an outcome of the improvement of the management system. This sub-clause also suggests that the output of clause 4 is knowledge. This generated knowledge is to inform other processes of the EMS. The high level analysis of the organisational context generates conceptual information or knowledge about the relationships between the organisation, the environment and the environmental management system. The standard does not require that this information or knowledge be documented (with the exception of the scope of the management system). The standard does, however, require that this knowledge be considered when other requirements of the ISO 14001: 2015 standard are addressed. The requirements demanding a consideration of the outputs from clause 4.1 include:
Clause 4.3, determining the scope of the EMS; Clause 5.2, environmental policy; Clause 6.1, actions to address risk and opportunities. The issues need to be unpacked and documented as risks and opportunities that require management in terms of the following clauses: Clause 6.1.4, planning to take action; Clause 6.2.1, environmental objectives; Clause 9.2.2 Internal audit programme; and Clause 9.3, management review.
Your Donation can make a difference.
We have chosen to make our Resources freely and openly available on the web with the hope that it touches the life of thousands of readers who visits us daily. We hope our blog has helped in enhancing the knowledge of our readers and added value to organization and their implementers. We would request you to make donation large and small, so as to provide us the resources needed to distribute, collect, digitize as it is becoming extremely difficult for us to afford the full cost of updating and enriching our site content. Your contribution will ensure that we can keep our blog up-to-date and add more of the rich resources — such as video — that make a difference for so many worldwide.
Your donation will demonstrate your commitment to knowledge as a public good and is an important part of our overall sustainability plan. Your donation is also important in demonstrating to us how much you value the site and motivates us to devote more of our time towards developing this blog.
Your Feedback.
If you need assistance or have any doubt and need to ask any question contact me at: preteshbiswas@gmail or call Pretesh Biswas at +919923345531. You can also contribute to this discussion and I shall be happy to publish them. Your comment and suggestion is also welcome.
Compartilhar isso:
14 Comments.
Very Informative and good description of Management System Articles.
good morning guys.
Can please any one send me the context of organisation examples for ISO 14001:2015.
wider explanation helped to understand the requirements, useful for any new learner to understand the requirements.
Very well explained with extremely helpful examples of what the new standard is driving companies to achieve. I would appreciate the templates if your happy to share!
Desde já, obrigado.
Thanks and please keep it up! if you have risk assessment template for need and expectation of interested party send me.
subject well handled – will greatly help me.
Obrigado. Please kindly share templates.
Nice explanation. Helps a lot for interpretation. Obrigado.
Thank you for explanation, very very helpfull.
Very well explained. really helpfull. Obrigado.
A crystal clear explanation and an analysis which facilitates the understanding of this clause. Thank you very much.
Well explain, thank you. Is it possible sharing some templates on specific new requirements. Looking forward for your response. My email address: murujmc@yahoo. Sincerely, Dr Steven Muru.
Please continue to support the blog. I shall provide with some examples at a later date.
Leave a comment Cancel reply.
Postagens recentes.
IATF 16949:2016 Organizational roles, responsibilities, and authorities February 5, 2018 IATF 16949:2016 Process owner January 27, 2018 IATF 16949:2016 Process effectiveness and efficiency January 21, 2018 IATF 16949:2016 Corporate responsibility November 10, 2017 IATF 16949:2016 Determining the Scope of the Quality Management System November 1, 2017 IATF 16949:2016 Conformance of products and processes October 26, 2017 IATF 16949:2016 Product safety September 11, 2017 IATF 16949:2016 GAP ANALYSIS TOOLS August 29, 2017 IATF 16949:2016 Automotive Quality Management System August 3, 2017.
ISO 27001:2013.
ISO 14001:2004.
Pretesh Biswas.
Subscribe to Blog via Email.
Aviso Legal.
I do not claim to be original author to many of the articles you find in my blog. I would like to thank all the original writers like Art Lewis and many others and websites like advisera and many others for the material available. I would also like to thank all my visitors like you for their continued support. I hope you would continue to support the blog by visiting us again for all the relevant information it contains. Remember that all this information is free and there is no need for registration for getting access to the information it contains.
Powered by WordPress / Academica WordPress Theme by WPZOOM.

Linked Data Platform 1.0.
W3C Recommendation 26 February 2015.
Please check the errata for any errors or issues reported since publication.
The English version of this specification is the only normative version. Non-normative translations may also be available.
Linked Data Platform (LDP) defines a set of rules for HTTP operations on web resources, some based on RDF , to provide an architecture for read-write Linked Data on the web.
Status of This Document.
This section describes the status of this document at the time of its publication. Other documents may supersede this document. A list of current W3C publications and the latest revision of this technical report can be found in the W3C technical reports index at w3/TR/.
This document has been reviewed by W3C Members, by software developers, and by other W3C groups and interested parties, and is endorsed by the Director as a W3C Recommendation. It is a stable document and may be used as reference material or cited from another document. W3C's role in making the Recommendation is to draw attention to the specification and to promote its widespread deployment. This enhances the functionality and interoperability of the Web.
This document was produced by a group operating under the 5 February 2004 W3C Patent Policy. W3C maintains a public list of any patent disclosures made in connection with the deliverables of the group; that page also includes instructions for disclosing a patent. An individual who has actual knowledge of a patent which the individual believes contains Essential Claim(s) must disclose the information in accordance with section 6 of the W3C Patent Policy.
Índice.
1. Introduction.
This section is non-normative.
This specification describes the use of HTTP for accessing, updating, creating and deleting resources from servers that expose their resources as Linked Data. It provides clarifications and extensions of the rules of Linked Data [ LINKED-DATA ]:
Use URIs as names for things Use HTTP URIs so that people can look up those names When someone looks up a URI, provide useful information, using the standards (RDF *, SPARQL ) Include links to other URIs, so that they can discover more things.
This specification discusses standard HTTP and RDF techniques used when constructing clients and servers that create, read, and write Linked Data Platform Resources. LDP Primer provides an entry-level introduction with many examples in the context of a fictional application. LDP Best Practices and Guidelines discusses best practices that you should use, and anti-patterns you should avoid, when constructing these clients and servers.
This specification defines a special type of Linked Data Platform Resource: a Container. Containers are very useful in building application models involving collections of resources, often homogeneous ones. For example, universities offer a collection of classes and a collection of faculty members, each faculty member teaches a collection of courses, and so on. This specification discusses how to work with containers. Resources can be added to containers using standard HTTP operations like POST (see section 5.2.3 HTTP POST ).
The intention of this specification is to enable additional rules and layered groupings of rules as additional specifications. The scope is intentionally narrow to provide a set of key rules for reading and writing Linked Data that most, if not all, other specifications will depend upon and implementations will support.
This specification provides some approaches to deal with large resources. An extension to this specification provides the ability to break large resource representations into multiple paged responses [ LDP-PAGING ].
2. Terminology.
Link A relationship between two resources when one resource (representation) refers to the other resource by means of a URI [ WEBARCH ].
Linked Data As defined by Tim Berners-Lee [ LINKED-DATA ].
Client A program that establishes connections for the purpose of sending one or more HTTP requests [ RFC7230 ].
Server A program that accepts connections in order to service HTTP requests by sending HTTP responses.
The terms "client" and "server" refer only to the roles that these programs perform for a particular connection. The same program might act as a client on some connections and a server on others.
HTTP enables the use of intermediaries to satisfy requests through a chain of connections. There are three common forms of HTTP intermediary: proxy, gateway, and tunnel. In some cases, a single intermediary might act as an origin server, proxy, gateway, or tunnel, switching behavior based on the nature of each request. [ RFC7230 ].
Linked Data Platform Non-RDF Source (LDP-NR ) An LDPR whose state is not represented in RDF . For example, these can be binary or text documents that do not have useful RDF representations.
Linked Data Platform Container (LDPC ) A LDP-RS representing a collection of linked documents (RDF Document [ rdf11-concepts ] or information resources [ WEBARCH ]) that responds to client requests for creation, modification, and/or enumeration of its linked members and documents, and that conforms to the simple lifecycle patterns and conventions in section 5. Linked Data Platform Containers .
Linked Data Platform Basic Container (LDP-BC ) An LDPC that defines a simple link to its contained documents (information resources) [ WEBARCH ].
Linked Data Platform Direct Container (LDP-DC ) An LDPC that adds the concept of membership, allowing the flexibility of choosing what form its membership triples take, and allows members to be any resources [ WEBARCH ], not only documents.
Linked Data Platform Indirect Container (LDP-IC ) An LDPC similar to a LDP-DC that is also capable of having members whose URIs are based on the content of its contained documents rather than the URIs assigned to those documents.
Membership The relationship linking an LDPC and its member LDPRs , which can be different resources than its contained documents. The LDPC often assists with managing the membership triples, whether or not the LDPC 's URI occurs in them.
Membership triples A set of triples that lists an LDPC 's members. A LDPC 's membership triples all have one of the following patterns:
Each linked container exposes properties (see section 5.2.1 General ) that allow clients to determine which pattern it uses, what the actual membership-predicate and membership-constant-URI values are, and (for containers that allow the creation of new members) what value is used for the member-derived-URI based on the client's input to the creation process.
Membership predicate The predicate of all an LDPC 's membership triples.
Containment The relationship binding an LDPC to LDPRs whose lifecycle it controls and is aware of. The lifecycle of the contained LDPR is limited by the lifecycle of the containing LDPC ; that is, a contained LDPR cannot be created (through LDP-defined means) before its containing LDPC exists.
Containment triples A set of triples, maintained by the LDPC , that lists documents created by the LDPC but not yet deleted. These triples always have the form: ( LDPC URI, ldp:contains , document-URI ) .
Minimal-container triples The portion of an LDPC 's triples that would be present when the container is empty. Currently, this definition is equivalent to all the LDPC 's triples minus its containment triples, and minus its membership triples (if either are considered part of its state), but if future versions of LDP define additional classes of triples then this definition would expand to subtract out those classes as well.
LDP-server-managed triples The portion of an LDP's triples whose behavior is constrained directly by this specification; for example, membership triples and containment triples. This portion of resources' content does not include constraints imposed outside of LDP, for example by other specifications that the server happens to support, or by server implementation decisions.
2.1 Conventions Used in This Document.
The namespace for LDP is w3/ns/ldp# .
Sample resource representations are provided in text/turtle format [ turtle ].
Commonly used namespace prefixes:
3. Conformance.
As well as sections marked as non-normative, all authoring guidelines, diagrams, examples, and notes in this specification are non-normative. Everything else in this specification is normative.
The key words MAY , MUST , MUST NOT , RECOMMENDED , SHOULD , and SHOULD NOT are to be interpreted as described in [ RFC2119 ].
The status of the sections of Linked Data Platform 1.0 (this document) is as follows:
1. Introduction: non-normative 2. Terminology: normative 3. Conformance: normative 4. Linked Data Platform Resources: normative 5. Linked Data Platform Containers: normative 6. Notable information from normative references: non-normative 7. HTTP Header Definitions: normative 8. Security Considerations: non-normative A. Acknowledgements: non-normative B. Change History: non-normative C.1 Normative references: normative C.2 Non-normative references: non-normative.
A conforming LDP server is a conforming HTTP server [ RFC7230 ] that follows the rules defined by LDP in section 4. Linked Data Platform Resources when it is serving LDPRs , and also section 5. Linked Data Platform Containers when it is serving LDPCs . LDP does not constrain its behavior when serving other HTTP resources.
4. Linked Data Platform Resources.
4.1 Introduction.
This section is non-normative.
Some of the rules defined in this document provide clarification and refinement of the base Linked Data rules [ LINKED-DATA ]; others address additional needs.
The rules for Linked Data Platform Resources address basic questions such as:
What resource representations should be used? How is optimistic collision detection handled for updates? What should client expectations be for changes to linked-to resources, such as type changes? How can the server make it easy for the client to create resources? How do I GET the representation of a large resource broken up into pages?
Additional non-normative guidance is available in the LDP Best Practices and Guidelines that addresses questions such as:
What literal value types should be used? Are there some typical vocabularies that should be reused? What guidelines exist when interacting with LDPRs that are common but are not universal enough to specify normatively?
The following sections define the conformance rules for LDP servers when serving LDPRs .
Fig. 1 Samples of different types of LDPRs.
Fig. 2 Class relationship of types of Linked Data Platform Resources.
4.2 Resource.
4.2.1 General.
4.2.1.1 LDP servers MUST at least be HTTP/1.1 conformant servers [ RFC7230 ].
4.2.1.2 LDP servers MAY host a mixture of LDP-RSs and LDP-NRs. For example, it is common for LDP servers to need to host binary or text resources that do not have useful RDF representations.
4.2.1.3 LDP server responses MUST use entity tags (either weak or strong ones) as response ETag header values, for responses that contain resource representations or successful responses to HTTP HEAD requests.
4.2.1.4 LDP servers exposing LDPRs MUST advertise their LDP support by exposing a HTTP Link header with a target URI of w3/ns/ldp#Resource , and a link relation type of type (that is, rel="type" ) in all responses to requests made to an LDPR 's HTTP Request-URI [ RFC5988 ].
Note: The HTTP Link header is the method by which servers assert their support for the LDP specification on a specific resource in a way that clients can inspect dynamically at run-time. This is not equivalent to the presence of a (subject-URI, rdf:type , ldp:Resource ) triple in an LDP-RS . The presence of the header asserts that the server complies with the LDP specification's constraints on HTTP interactions with LDPRs , that is it asserts that the resource has Etags, supports OPTIONS, and so on, which is not true of all Web resources.
Note: A LDP server can host a mixture of LDP-RSs and LDP-NRs, and therefore there is no implication that LDP support advertised on one HTTP Request-URI means that other resources on the same server are also LDPRs . Each HTTP Request-URI needs to be individually inspected, in the absence of outside information.
4.2.1.5 LDP servers MUST assign the default base-URI for [ RFC3987 ] relative-URI resolution to be the HTTP Request-URI when the resource already exists, and to the URI of the created resource when the request results in the creation of a new resource.
4.2.1.6 LDP servers MUST publish any constraints on LDP clients’ ability to create or update LDPRs , by adding a Link header with an appropriate context URI, a link relation of w3/ns/ldp#constrainedBy , and a target URI identifying a set of constraints [ RFC5988 ], to all responses to requests that fail due to violation of those constraints. For example, a server that refuses resource creation requests via HTTP PUT, POST, or PATCH would return this Link header on its 4xx responses to such requests. The same Link header MAY be provided on other responses. LDP neither defines nor constrains the representation of the link's target resource. Natural language constraint documents are therefore permitted, although machine-readable ones facilitate better client interactions. The appropriate context URI can vary based on the request's semantics and method; unless the response is otherwise constrained, the default (the effective request URI) SHOULD be used.
4.2.2 HTTP GET.
4.2.2.1 LDP servers MUST support the HTTP GET method for LDPRs .
4.2.2.2 LDP servers MUST support the HTTP response headers defined in section 4.2.8 HTTP OPTIONS for the HTTP GET method.
4.2.3 HTTP POST.
Per [ RFC7231 ], this HTTP method is optional and this specification does not require LDP servers to support it. When a LDP server supports this method, this specification imposes no new requirements for LDPRs .
4.2.4 HTTP PUT.
Per [ RFC7231 ], this HTTP method is optional and this specification does not require LDP servers to support it. When a LDP server supports this method, this specification imposes the following new requirements for LDPRs .
4.2.4.1 If a HTTP PUT is accepted on an existing resource, LDP servers MUST replace the entire persistent state of the identified resource with the entity representation in the body of the request. LDP servers MAY ignore LDP-server-managed properties, and MAY ignore other properties such as dcterms:modified and dcterms:creator if they are handled specially by the server (for example, if the server overrides the value or supplies a default value). Any LDP servers that wish to support a more sophisticated merge of data provided by the client with existing state stored on the server for a resource MUST use HTTP PATCH , not HTTP PUT .
4.2.4.2 LDP servers SHOULD allow clients to update resources without requiring detailed knowledge of server-specific constraints. This is a consequence of the requirement to enable simple creation and modification of LDPRs .
4.2.4.3 If an otherwise valid HTTP PUT request is received that attempts to change properties the server does not allow clients to modify, LDP servers MUST fail the request by responding with a 4xx range status code (typically 409 Conflict). LDP servers SHOULD provide a corresponding response body containing information about which properties could not be persisted. The format of the 4xx response body is not constrained by LDP.
4.2.4.4 If an otherwise valid HTTP PUT request is received that contains properties the server chooses not to persist, e. g. unknown content, LDP servers MUST respond with an appropriate 4xx range status code [ RFC7231 ]. LDP servers SHOULD provide a corresponding response body containing information about which properties could not be persisted. The format of the 4xx response body is not constrained by LDP. LDP servers expose these application-specific constraints as described in section 4.2.1 General .
4.2.4.5 LDP clients SHOULD use the HTTP If-Match header and HTTP ETags to ensure it isn’t modifying a resource that has changed since the client last retrieved its representation. LDP servers SHOULD require the HTTP If-Match header and HTTP ETags to detect collisions. LDP servers MUST respond with status code 412 (Condition Failed) if ETag s fail to match when there are no other errors with the request [ RFC7232 ]. LDP servers that require conditional requests MUST respond with status code 428 (Precondition Required) when the absence of a precondition is the only reason for rejecting the request [ RFC6585 ].
4.2.4.6 LDP servers MAY choose to allow the creation of new resources using HTTP PUT .
4.2.5 HTTP DELETE.
Per [ RFC7231 ], this HTTP method is optional and this specification does not require LDP servers to support it. When a LDP server supports this method, this specification imposes no new blanket requirements for LDPRs .
4.2.6 HTTP HEAD.
Note that certain LDP mechanisms rely on HTTP headers, and HTTP generally requires that HEAD responses include the same headers as GET responses. Thus, implementers should also carefully read sections 4.2.2 HTTP GET and 4.2.8 HTTP OPTIONS .
4.2.6.1 LDP servers MUST support the HTTP HEAD method.
4.2.7 HTTP PATCH.
Per [ RFC5789 ], this HTTP method is optional and this specification does not require LDP servers to support it. When a LDP server supports this method, this specification imposes the following new requirements for LDPRs .
4.2.7.1 LDP servers that support PATCH MUST include an Accept-Patch HTTP response header [ RFC5789 ] on HTTP OPTIONS requests, listing patch document media type(s) supported by the server.
4.2.8 HTTP OPTIONS.
This specification imposes the following new requirements on HTTP OPTIONS for LDPRs beyond those in [ RFC7231 ]. Other sections of this specification, for example PATCH, Accept-Post, add other requirements on OPTIONS responses.
4.2.8.1 LDP servers MUST support the HTTP OPTIONS method.
4.2.8.2 LDP servers MUST indicate their support for HTTP Methods by responding to a HTTP OPTIONS request on the LDPR ’s URL with the HTTP Method tokens in the HTTP response header Allow .
4.3 RDF Source.
The following section contains normative clauses for Linked Data Platform RDF Source.
4.3.1 General.
4.3.1.1 Each LDP RDF Source MUST also be a conforming LDP Resource as defined in section 4.2 Resource , along with the restrictions in this section. LDP clients MAY infer the following triple: one whose subject is the LDP-RS , whose predicate is rdf:type , and whose object is ldp:Resource , but there is no requirement to materialize this triple in the LDP-RS representation.
4.3.1.2 LDP-RSs representations SHOULD have at least one rdf:type set explicitly. This makes the representations much more useful to client applications that don’t support inferencing.
4.3.1.3 The representation of a LDP-RS MAY have an rdf:type of ldp:RDFSource for Linked Data Platform RDF Source.
4.3.1.4 LDP servers MUST provide an RDF representation for LDP-RSs. The HTTP Request-URI of the LDP-RS is typically the subject of most triples in the response.
4.3.1.5 LDP-RSs SHOULD reuse existing vocabularies instead of creating their own duplicate vocabulary terms. In addition to this general rule, some specific cases are covered by other conformance rules.
4.3.1.6 LDP-RSs predicates SHOULD use standard vocabularies such as Dublin Core [ DC-TERMS ], RDF [ rdf11-concepts ] and RDF Schema [ rdf-schema ], whenever possible.
4.3.1.7 In the absence of special knowledge of the application or domain, LDP clients MUST assume that any LDP-RS can have multiple rdf:type triples with different objects.
4.3.1.8 In the absence of special knowledge of the application or domain, LDP clients MUST assume that the rdf:type values of a given LDP-RS can change over time.
4.3.1.9 LDP clients SHOULD always assume that the set of predicates for a LDP-RS of a particular type at an arbitrary server is open, in the sense that different resources of the same type may not all have the same set of predicates in their triples, and the set of predicates that are used in the state of any one LDP-RS is not limited to any pre-defined set.
4.3.1.10 LDP servers MUST NOT require LDP clients to implement inferencing in order to recognize the subset of content defined by LDP. Other specifications built on top of LDP may require clients to implement inferencing [ rdf11-concepts ]. The practical implication is that all content defined by LDP must be explicitly represented, unless noted otherwise within this document.
4.3.1.11 A LDP client MUST preserve all triples retrieved from a LDP-RS using HTTP GET that it doesn’t change whether it understands the predicates or not, when its intent is to perform an update using HTTP PUT . The use of HTTP PATCH instead of HTTP PUT for update avoids this burden for clients [ RFC5789 ].
4.3.1.12 LDP clients MAY provide LDP-defined hints that allow servers to optimize the content of responses. section 7.2 Preferences on the Prefer Request Header defines hints that apply to LDP-RSs.
4.3.1.13 LDP clients MUST be capable of processing responses formed by a LDP server that ignores hints, including LDP-defined hints.
4.3.2 HTTP GET.
4.3.2.1 LDP servers MUST respond with a Turtle representation of the requested LDP-RS when the request includes an Accept header specifying text/turtle , unless HTTP content negotiation requires a different outcome [ turtle ].
4.3.2.2 LDP servers SHOULD respond with a text/turtle representation of the requested LDP-RS whenever the Accept request header is absent [ turtle ].
4.3.2.3 LDP servers MUST respond with a application/ld+json representation of the requested LDP-RS when the request includes an Accept header, unless content negotiation or Turtle support requires a different outcome [ JSON-LD ].
4.4 Non-RDF Source.
The following section contains normative clauses for Linked Data Platform Non-RDF Source.
4.4.1 General.
4.4.1.1 Each LDP Non-RDF Source MUST also be a conforming LDP Resource in section 4.2 Resource . LDP Non-RDF Sources may not be able to fully express their state using RDF [ rdf11-concepts ].
4.4.1.2 LDP servers exposing an LDP Non-RDF Source MAY advertise this by exposing a HTTP Link header with a target URI of w3/ns/ldp#NonRDFSource , and a link relation type of type (that is, rel="type" ) in responses to requests made to the LDP-NR 's HTTP Request-URI [ RFC5988 ].
5. Linked Data Platform Containers.
5.1 Introduction.
This section is non-normative.
Many HTTP applications and sites have organizing concepts that partition the overall space of resources into smaller containers. Blog posts are grouped into blogs, wiki pages are grouped into wikis, and products are grouped into catalogs. Each resource created in the application or site is created within an instance of one of these container-like entities, and users can list the existing artifacts within one. Containers answer some basic questions, which are:
To which URLs can I POST to create new resources? Where can I GET a list of existing resources? How do I get information about the members along with the container? How can I ensure the resource data is easy to query? How is the order of the container entries expressed? [ LDP-PAGING ]
This document defines the representation and behavior of containers that address these issues. There are multiple types of containers defined to support a variety of use cases, all that support a base set of capabilities. The contents of a container is defined by a set of triples in its representation (and state) called the containment triples that follow a fixed pattern. Additional types of containers allow for the set of members of a container to be defined by a set of triples in its representation called the membership triples that follow a consistent pattern (see the linked-to definition for the possible patterns). The membership triples of a container all have the same predicate, called the membership predicate, and either the subject or the object is also a consistent value – the remaining position of the membership triples (the one that varies) define the members of the container. In the simplest cases, the consistent value will be the LDPC resource's URI, but it does not have to be. The membership predicate is also variable and will often be a predicate from the server application vocabulary or the ldp:member predicate.
In LDP 1.0, there exists a way for clients to request responses that contain only partial representations of the containers. Applications may define additional means by which the response representations contain a filtered set of data and including (or excluding) additional details, those means are application-specific and not defined in this document.
This document includes a set of guidelines for creating new resources and adding them to the list of resources linked to a container. It goes on to explain how to learn about a set of related resources, regardless of how they were created or added to the container's membership. It also defines behavior when resources created using a container are later deleted; deleting containers removes membership information and possibly performs some cleanup tasks on unreferenced member resources.
The following illustrates a very simple container with only three members and some information about the container (the fact that it is a container and a brief title):
Request to example/c1/ :
The preceding example is very straightforward: there are containment triples whose subject is the container, whose predicate is ldp:contains , and whose objects are the URIs of the contained resources, and there is no distinction between member resources and contained resources. A POST to this container will create a new resource and add it to the list of contained resources by adding a new containment triple to the container. This type of container is called a Linked Data Platform Basic Container.
Sometimes you have to build on existing models incrementally, so you have fewer degrees of freedom in the resource model. In these situations, it can be useful to help clients map LDP patterns onto existing vocabularies, or to include members not created via the container; LDP Direct Containers meet those kinds of needs. Direct Containers allow membership triples to use a subject other than the container itself as the consistent membership value, and/or to use a predicate from an application's domain model as the membership predicate.
Let's start with a pre-existing domain resource for a person's net worth, as illustrated immediately below, and then see how a Container resource can be applied in subsequent examples:
Request to example/netWorth/nw1/ :
In the preceding example, there is a rdf:type of o:NetWorth indicating the resource represents an instance of a person's net worth and a o:netWorthOf predicate indicating the associated person. There are two sets of same-subject, same-predicate triples; one for assets and one for liabilities. Existing domain-specific applications exist that depend on those types and predicates, so changing them incompatibly would be frowned upon.
It would be helpful to be able to use LDP patterns to manage the assets and liabilities-related triples. Doing so using a Basic Container would require duplicating much of the information with different types and predicates, which would be onerous for large resources. Direct Containers provide a middle ground, by giving LDP clients a way to map existing domain-specific resources to LDP's types and interaction models. In this specific example, it would be helpful to be able to manage the assets and liabilities triples consistently, for example by using LDP containers. One way to do this is to create two containers, one to manage assets and another liabilities, as separate HTTP resources. Existing clients have no need to interact with those containers, whereas LDP-enabled clients now have container URLs that they can interact with. The existing resource remains unchanged so that existing clients continue to function normally. This is illustrated in the set of related examples, one example per HTTP resource, starting with the LDP-RS example from before:
Request to example/netWorth/nw1/ :
The structure of the net worth resource is completely unchanged, so any existing domain-specific applications continue to work without impact. LDP clients, on the other hand, have no way to understand that the asset and liability triples correspond in any way to LDP containers. For that, they need the next two resources.
The first container is a LDP Direct Container to manage assets. Direct Containers add the concept of membership and flexibility on how to specify the membership triples.
Request to example/netWorth/nw1/assets/ :
In the preceding asset container, the consistent membership value (membership-constant-URI, still in the subject position) is not the container itself – it is the (separate) net worth resource. The membership predicate is o:asset , from the domain model. A POST of an asset representation to the asset container will create a new asset and add it to net-worth's list of assets by adding a new membership triple to the resource and a containment triple to the container.
The second container is a LDP Direct Container to manage liabilities.
Request to example/netWorth/nw1/liabilities/ :
The preceding liability container is completely analogous to the asset container above, simply managing liabilities instead of assets and using the o:liability predicate.
To add a another liability, a client would POST something like this to the liability container:
Request to example/netWorth/nw1/liabilities/ :
Assuming the server successfully processes this request and assigns the URI <example/netWorth/nw1/liabilities/l4> to the newly created liability resource, at least two new triples would be added.
In the net worth resource, <example/netWorth/nw1/> o:liability <liabilities/l4> In the liability container, <example/netWorth/nw1/liabilities/> ldp:contains <l4> .
You might wonder why we chose to create two new containers instead of making example/netWorth/nw1/ itself a container. A single net worth container would be a fine design if example/netWorth/nw1/ had only assets or only liabilities (basically: only a single predicate to manage), but since it has separate predicates for assets and liabilities an ambiguity arises: it is unspecified whether a client's creation request (POST) should add a new o:asset or o:liability triple. Having separate example/netWorth/nw1/assets/ and example/netWorth/nw1/liabilities/ containers allows both assets and liabilities to be created and linked to the net-worth resource using the appropriate predicate. Similar ambiguities arise if the client wishes to list the members and/or contained resources.
Continuing in the multiple containers direction, we will now extend our net worth example to add a container for advisors (people) that have managed the assets and liabilities. We have decided to identify these advisors with URLs that contain a fragment (hash) to represent these real-world resources, not the documents that describe them.
Request to example/netWorth/nw1/ :
To handle this type of indirection, the triple with predicate of ldp:insertedContentRelation and object of foaf:primaryTopic informs clients that when POSTing to this container, they need to include a triple of the form (<>, foaf:primaryTopic, topic-URI) to inform the server which URI to use ( topic-URI ) in the new membership triple.
This type of container is referred to as a LDP Indirect Container. It is similar to an LDP Direct Container but it provides an indirection to add (via a create request) as a member any resource, including a URI representing a real-world object. Create requests to LDP Direct Containers can only add information resources [ WEBARCH ] - the documents they create - as members.
To add a another advisor, a client would POST something like this to the advisors container:
Request to example/netWorth/nw1/advisors/ :
Assuming the server successfully processes this request and assigns the URI <example/netWorth/nw1/advisors/george> to the newly created advisor resource, at least two new triples would be added.
In the net worth resource, <example/netWorth/nw1/> o:advisor <advisors/george#me> In the advisors container, <example/netWorth/nw1/advisors/> ldp:contains <george>
In summary, Fig. 3 Class relationship of types of Linked Data Platform Containers illustrates the LDP-defined container types: Basic, Direct, and Indirect, along with their class relationship to types of LDPRs .
Fig. 3 Class relationship of types of Linked Data Platform Containers.
The following table illustrates some differences between membership and containment triples. For details on the normative behavior, see appropriate sections below.
5.1.1 Retrieving Only Minimal-Container Triples.
The representation of a container that has many members will be large. There are several important cases where clients need to access only the subset of the container's properties that are unrelated to member resources and unrelated to contained documents, for example to determine the membership triple pattern and membership predicate of an LDP-DC . LDP calls these minimal-container triples, because they are what remains when the container has zero members and zero contained resources. Since retrieving the whole container representation to get this information may be onerous for clients and cause unnecessary overhead on servers, we define a way to retrieve only these property values (and more generally, a way to retrieve only the subset of properties used to address other major clusters of use cases). LDP adds parameters to the HTTP Prefer header's return=representation preference for this (see section 7.2 Preferences on the Prefer Request Header for details).
The example listed here only shows a simple case where few minimal-container triples are retrieved. In real world situations more complex cases are likely, such as those that add other predicates to containers, for example providing validation information and associating SPARQL endpoints. [ sparql11-query ]
Here is an example requesting the minimal-container triples of a container identified by the URL example/container1/ .
Request to example/container1/ :
LDP recommends using PATCH to update these properties, if necessary. It provides no facility for updating them via PUT without replacing the entire container's state.
5.2 Container.
The following section contains normative clauses for Linked Data Platform Container.
5.2.1 General.
The Linked Data Platform does not define how clients discover LDPCs .
5.2.1.1 Each Linked Data Platform Container MUST also be a conforming Linked Data Platform RDF Source. LDP clients MAY infer the following triple: one whose subject is the LDPC , whose predicate is rdf:type , and whose object is ldp:RDFSource , but there is no requirement to materialize this triple in the LDPC representation.
5.2.1.2 The representation of a LDPC MAY have an rdf:type of ldp:Container for Linked Data Platform Container. Non-normative note: LDPCs might have additional types, like any LDP-RS .
5.2.1.3 LDPC representations SHOULD NOT use RDF container types rdf:Bag , rdf:Seq or rdf:List .
5.2.1.4 LDP servers exposing LDPCs MUST advertise their LDP support by exposing a HTTP Link header with a target URI matching the type of container (see below) the server supports, and a link relation type of type (that is, rel="type" ) in all responses to requests made to the LDPC 's HTTP Request-URI . LDP servers MAY provide additional HTTP Link: rel="type" headers. The notes on the corresponding LDPR constraint apply equally to LDPCs .
Valid container type URIs for rel="type" defined by this document are:
5.2.1.5 LDP servers SHOULD respect all of a client's LDP-defined hints, for example which subsets of LDP-defined state the client is interested in processing, to influence the set of triples returned in representations of a LDPC , particularly for large LDPCs . See also [ LDP-PAGING ].
5.2.2 HTTP GET.
Per section 4.2.2 HTTP GET the HTTP GET method is required and additional requirements can be found in section 5.2.1 General .
5.2.3 HTTP POST.
Per [ RFC7231 ], this HTTP method is optional and this specification does not require LDP servers to support it. When a LDP server supports this method, this specification imposes the following new requirements for LDPCs .
Any server-imposed constraints on creation or update must be advertised to clients.
5.2.3.1 LDP clients SHOULD create member resources by submitting a representation as the entity body of the HTTP POST to a known LDPC . If the resource was created successfully, LDP servers MUST respond with status code 201 (Created) and the Location header set to the new resource’s URL. Clients shall not expect any representation in the response entity body on a 201 (Created) response.
5.2.3.2 When a successful HTTP POST request to a LDPC results in the creation of a LDPR , a containment triple MUST be added to the state of the LDPC whose subject is the LDPC URI, whose predicate is ldp:contains and whose object is the URI for the newly created document (LDPR ). Other triples may be added as well. The newly created LDPR appears as a contained resource of the LDPC until the newly created document is deleted or removed by other methods.
5.2.3.3 LDP servers MAY accept an HTTP POST of non-RDF representations (LDP-NRs) for creation of any kind of resource, for example binary resources. See the Accept-Post section for details on how clients can discover whether a LDPC supports this behavior.
5.2.3.4 LDP servers that successfully create a resource from a RDF representation in the request entity body MUST honor the client's requested interaction model(s). If any requested interaction model cannot be honored, the server MUST fail the request.
If the request header specifies a LDPR interaction model, then the server MUST handle subsequent requests to the newly created resource's URI as if it is a LDPR . When the server treats the resource as a LDPR , then clients can only depend upon behaviors defined by LDPRs , even if the content contains an rdf:type triple indicating a type of LDPC . That is, if the server's statement conflicts with the content's, the server's statement wins. If the request header specifies a LDPC interaction model, then the server MUST handle subsequent requests to the newly created resource's URI as if it is a LDPC . This specification does not constrain the server's behavior in other cases.
Clients use the same syntax, that is HTTP Link headers, to specify the desired interaction model when creating a resource as servers use to advertise it on responses.
Note: A consequence of this is that LDPCs can be used to create LDPCs , if the server supports doing so.
Non-normative note: LDP assumes that the interaction model of a resource is fixed when the resource is created, and this is reflected in the language of the bullets. If an implementation were to extend LDP by allowing the interaction model to vary after creation, that is viewed as a compatible extension to LDP and the statements above would constrain the default interaction model rather than saying that no other behavior is possible.
5.2.3.5 LDP servers that allow creation of LDP-RSs via POST MUST allow clients to create new members by enclosing a request entity body with a Content-Type request header whose value is text/turtle [ turtle ].
5.2.3.6 LDP servers SHOULD use the Content-Type request header to determine the request representation's format when the request has an entity body.
5.2.3.7 LDP servers creating a LDP-RS via POST MUST interpret the null relative URI for the subject of triples in the LDP-RS representation in the request entity body as identifying the entity in the request body. Commonly, that entity is the model for the "to be created" LDPR , so triples whose subject is the null relative URI result in triples in the created resource whose subject is the created resource.
5.2.3.8 LDP servers SHOULD assign the URI for the resource to be created using server application specific rules in the absence of a client hint.
5.2.3.9 LDP servers SHOULD allow clients to create new resources without requiring detailed knowledge of application-specific constraints. This is a consequence of the requirement to enable simple creation and modification of LDPRs . LDP servers expose these application-specific constraints as described in section 4.2.1 General .
5.2.3.10 LDP servers MAY allow clients to suggest the URI for a resource created through POST , using the HTTP Slug header as defined in [ RFC5023 ]. LDP adds no new requirements to this usage, so its presence functions as a client hint to the server providing a desired string to be incorporated into the server's final choice of resource URI.
5.2.3.11 LDP servers that allow member creation via POST SHOULD NOT re-use URIs.
5.2.3.12 Upon successful creation of an LDP-NR (HTTP status code of 201-Created and URI indicated by Location response header), LDP servers MAY create an associated LDP-RS to contain data about the newly created LDP-NR . If a LDP server creates this associated LDP-RS , it MUST indicate its location in the response by adding a HTTP Link header with a context URI identifying the newly created LDP-NR (instead of the effective request URI), a link relation value of describedby , and a target URI identifying the associated LDP-RS resource [ RFC5988 ].
5.2.3.13 LDP servers that support POST MUST include an Accept-Post response header on HTTP OPTIONS responses, listing POST request media type(s) supported by the server. LDP only specifies the use of POST for the purpose of creating new resources, but a server can accept POST requests with other semantics. While "POST to create" is a common interaction pattern, LDP clients are not guaranteed, even when making requests to a LDP server, that every successful POST request will result in the creation of a new resource; they must rely on out of band information for knowledge of which POST requests, if any, will have the "create new resource" semantics. This requirement on LDP servers is intentionally stronger than the one levied in the header registration; it is unrealistic to expect all existing resources that support POST to suddenly return a new header or for all new specifications constraining POST to be aware of its existence and require it, but it is a reasonable requirement for new specifications such as LDP.
5.2.3.14 LDP servers that allow creation of LDP-RSs via POST MUST allow clients to create new members by enclosing a request entity body with a Content-Type request header whose value is application/ld+json [ JSON-LD ].
5.2.4 HTTP PUT.
Per [ RFC7231 ], this HTTP method is optional and this specification does not require LDP servers to support it. When a LDP server supports this method, this specification imposes the following new requirements for LDPCs .
Any server-imposed constraints on creation or update must be advertised to clients.
5.2.4.1 LDP servers SHOULD NOT allow HTTP PUT to update a LDPC ’s containment triples; if the server receives such a request, it SHOULD respond with a 409 (Conflict) status code.
5.2.4.2 LDP servers that allow LDPR creation via PUT SHOULD NOT re-use URIs.
5.2.5 HTTP DELETE.
Per [ RFC7231 ], this HTTP method is optional and this specification does not require LDP servers to support it. When a LDP server supports this method, this specification imposes the following new requirements for LDPCs .
5.2.5.1 When a contained LDPR is deleted, the LDPC server MUST also remove the corresponding containment triple, which has the effect of removing the deleted LDPR from the containing LDPC .
5.2.5.2 When a contained LDPR is deleted, and the LDPC server created an associated LDP-RS (see the LDPC POST section), the LDPC server MUST also delete the associated LDP-RS it created.
5.2.6 HTTP HEAD.
Note that certain LDP mechanisms rely on HTTP headers, and HTTP recommends that HEAD responses include the same headers as GET responses. LDP servers must also include HTTP headers on responses to OPTIONS , see section 4.2.8 HTTP OPTIONS . Thus, implementers supporting HEAD should also carefully read the section 5.2.2 HTTP GET and section 5.2.8 HTTP OPTIONS .
5.2.7 HTTP PATCH.
Per [ RFC5789 ], this HTTP method is optional and this specification does not require LDP servers to support it. When a LDP server supports this method, this specification imposes the following new requirements for LDPCs .
5.2.7.1 LDP servers are RECOMMENDED to support HTTP PATCH as the preferred method for updating a LDPC 's minimal-container triples.
5.2.8 HTTP OPTIONS.
5.2.8.1 When responding to requests whose request-URI is a LDP-NR with an associated LDP-RS , a LDPC server MUST provide the same HTTP Link response header as is required in the create response.
The following section contains normative clauses for Linked Data Platform Basic Container.
5.3.1 General.
5.3.1.1 Each LDP Basic Container MUST also be a conforming LDP Container in section 5.2 Container along with the following restrictions in this section. LDP clients MAY infer the following triple: whose subject is the LDP Basic Container, whose predicate is rdf:type , and whose object is ldp:Container , but there is no requirement to materialize this triple in the LDP-BC representation.
The following section contains normative clauses for Linked Data Platform Direct Container.
5.4.1 General.
5.4.1.1 Each LDP Direct Container MUST also be a conforming LDP Container in section 5.2 Container along the following restrictions. LDP clients MAY infer the following triple: whose subject is the LDP Direct Container, whose predicate is rdf:type , and whose object is ldp:Container , but there is no requirement to materialize this triple in the LDP-DC representation.
5.4.1.2 LDP Direct Containers SHOULD use the ldp:member predicate as a LDPC 's membership predicate if there is no obvious predicate from an application vocabulary to use. The state of a LDPC includes information about which resources are its members, in the form of membership triples that follow a consistent pattern. The LDPC 's state contains enough information for clients to discern the membership predicate, the other consistent membership value used in the container's membership triples ( membership-constant-URI ), and the position (subject or object) where those URIs occurs in the membership triples. Member resources can be any kind of resource identified by a URI, LDPR or otherwise.
5.4.1.3 Each LDP Direct Container representation MUST contain exactly one triple whose subject is the LDPC URI, whose predicate is the ldp:membershipResource , and whose object is the LDPC 's membership-constant-URI . Commonly the LDPC 's URI is the membership-constant-URI , but LDP does not require this.
5.4.1.4 Each LDP Direct Container representation MUST contain exactly one triple whose subject is the LDPC URI, and whose predicate is either ldp:hasMemberRelation or ldp:isMemberOfRelation . The object of the triple is constrained by other sections, such as ldp:hasMemberRelation or ldp:isMemberOfRelation, based on the membership triple pattern used by the container.
5.4.1.4.1 LDP Direct Containers whose membership triple pattern is ( membership-constant-URI , membership-predicate , member-derived-URI ) MUST contain exactly one triple whose subject is the LDPC URI, whose predicate is ldp:hasMemberRelation , and whose object is the URI of membership-predicate .
5.4.1.4.2 LDP Direct Containers whose membership triple pattern is ( member-derived-URI , membership-predicate , membership-constant-URI ) MUST contain exactly one triple whose subject is the LDPC URI, whose predicate is ldp:isMemberOfRelation , and whose object is the URI of membership-predicate .
5.4.1.5 LDP Direct Containers MUST behave as if they have a ( LDPC URI, ldp:insertedContentRelation , ldp:MemberSubject ) triple, but LDP imposes no requirement to materialize such a triple in the LDP-DC representation. The value ldp:MemberSubject means that the member-derived-URI is the URI assigned by the server to a document it creates; for example, if the client POSTs content to a container that causes the container to create a new LDPR , ldp:MemberSubject says that the member-derived-URI is the URI assigned to the newly created LDPR .
5.4.2 HTTP POST.
5.4.2.1 When a successful HTTP POST request to a LDPC results in the creation of a LDPR , the LDPC MUST update its membership triples to reflect that addition, and the resulting membership triple MUST be consistent with any LDP-defined predicates it exposes. A LDP Direct Container's membership triples MAY also be modified via through other means.
5.4.3 HTTP DELETE.
5.4.3.1 When a LDPR identified by the object of a membership triple which was originally created by the LDP-DC is deleted, the LDPC server MUST also remove the corresponding membership triple.
5.5 Indirect.
The following section contains normative clauses for Linked Data Platform Indirect Container.
5.5.1 General.
5.5.1.1 Each LDP Indirect Container MUST also be a conforming LDP Direct Container as described in section 5.4 Direct , along with the following restrictions. LDP clients MAY infer the following triple: one whose subject is LDP Indirect Container, whose predicate is rdf:type , and whose object is ldp:Container , but there is no requirement to materialize this triple in the LDP-IC representation.
5.5.1.2 LDP Indirect Containers MUST contain exactly one triple whose subject is the LDPC URI, whose predicate is ldp:insertedContentRelation , and whose object ICR describes how the member-derived-URI in the container's membership triples is chosen. The member-derived-URI is taken from some triple ( S, P, O ) in the document supplied by the client as input to the create request; if ICR 's value is P , then the member-derived-URI is O . LDP does not define the behavior when more than one triple containing the predicate P is present in the client's input. For example, if the client POSTs RDF content to a container that causes the container to create a new LDP-RS , and that content contains the triple ( <> , foaf:primaryTopic , bob#me ) foaf:primaryTopic says that the member-derived-URI is bob#me . One consequence of this definition is that indirect container member creation is only well-defined by LDP when the document supplied by the client as input to the create request has an RDF media type.
5.5.2 HTTP POST.
5.5.2.1 LDPCs whose ldp:insertedContentRelation triple has an object other than ldp:MemberSubject and that create new resources MUST add a triple to the container whose subject is the container's URI, whose predicate is ldp:contains , and whose object is the newly created resource's URI (which will be different from the member-derived URI in this case). This ldp:contains triple can be the only link from the container to the newly created resource in certain cases.
6. Notable information from normative references.
This section is non-normative.
While readers, and especially implementers, of LDP are assumed to understand the information in its normative references, the working group has found that certain points are particularly important to understand. For those thoroughly familiar with the referenced specifications, these points might seem obvious, yet experience has shown that few non-experts find all of them obvious. This section enumerates these topics; it is simply re-stating (non-normatively) information locatable via the normative references.
6.1 Architecture of the World Wide Web.
This section is non-normative.
6.1.1 LDPC membership is not exclusive; this means that the same resource (LDPR or not) can be a member of more than one LDPC .
6.1.2 LDP servers should not re-use URIs, regardless of the mechanism by which members are created ( POST , PUT , etc.). Certain specific cases exist where a LDPC server might delete a resource and then later re-use the URI when it identifies the same resource, but only when consistent with Web architecture. While it is difficult to provide absolute implementation guarantees of non-reuse in all failure scenarios, re-using URIs creates ambiguities for clients that are best avoided.
6.2 HTTP 1.1.
This section is non-normative.
6.2.1 LDP servers can support representations beyond those necessary to conform to this specification. These could be other RDF formats, like N3 or NTriples, but non-RDF formats like HTML [ HTML401 ] and JSON [ RFC4627 ] would likely be common. HTTP content negotiation ([ RFC7231 ] Section 3.4 - Content Negotiation) is used to select the format.
6.2.2 LDPRs can be created, updated and deleted using methods not defined in this document, for example through application-specific means, SPARQL UPDATE, etc. [ SPARQL-UPDATE ], as long as those methods do not conflict with this specification's normative requirements.
6.2.3 LDP servers remove the resource identified by the Request-URI in response to a successful HTTP DELETE request. After such a request, a subsequent HTTP GET on the same Request-URI usually results in a 404 (Not found) or 410 (Gone) status code, although HTTP allows others.
6.2.4 LDP servers can alter the state of other resources as a result of any HTTP request, especially when non-safe methods are used ([ RFC7231 ] section 4.2.1). For example, it is acceptable for the server to remove triples from other resources whose subject or object is the deleted resource as the result of a successful HTTP DELETE request. It is also acceptable and common for LDP servers to not do this – the server's behavior can vary, so LDP clients cannot depend on it.
6.2.5 LDP servers can implement HTTP PATCH to allow modifications, especially partial replacement, of their resources. No minimal set of patch document formats is mandated by this document or by the definition of PATCH [ RFC5789 ].
6.2.6 When the Content-Type request header is absent from a request, LDP servers might infer the content type by inspecting the entity body contents ([ RFC7231 ] section 3.1.1.5).
This section is non-normative.
6.3.1 The state of a LDPR can have triples with any subject(s). The URL used to retrieve the representation of a LDPR need not be the subject of any of its triples.
6.3.2 The representation of a LDPC can include an arbitrary number of additional triples whose subjects are the members of the container, or that are from the representations of the members (if they have RDF representations). This allows an LDP server to provide clients with information about the members without the client having to do a GET on each member individually.
6.3.3 The state of a LDPR can have more than one triple with an rdf:type predicate.
7. HTTP Header Definitions.
7.1 The Accept-Post Response Header.
The LDP Working Group proposes incorporation of the features described in this section.
The Accept-Post header has applicability beyond LDP as outlined in this IETF draft [ Accept-Post ].
This specification introduces a new HTTP response header Accept-Post used to specify the document formats accepted by the server on HTTP POST requests. It is modelled after the Accept-Patch header defined in [ RFC5789 ].
7.1.1 The syntax for Accept-Post , using the ABNF syntax defined in Section 1.2 of [ RFC7231 ], is:
The Accept-Post header specifies a comma-separated list of media ranges (with optional parameters) as defined by [ RFC7231 ], Section 5.3.2. The Accept-Post header, in effect, uses the same syntax as the HTTP Accept header minus the optional accept-params BNF production, since the latter does not apply to Accept-Post .
7.1.2 The Accept-Post HTTP header SHOULD appear in the OPTIONS response for any resource that supports the use of the POST method. The presence of the Accept-Post header in response to any method is an implicit indication that POST is allowed on the resource identified by the Request-URI . The presence of a specific document format in this header indicates that that specific format is allowed on POST requests to the resource identified by the Request-URI .
7.1.3 IANA Registration Template.
The Accept-Post response header must be added to the permanent registry (see [ RFC3864 ]).
Header field name: Accept-Post.
Applicable Protocol: HTTP.
Author/Change controller: W3C.
Specification document: this specification.
7.2 Preferences on the Prefer Request Header.
7.2.1 Summary.
This specification introduces new parameters on the HTTP Prefer request header's return=representation preference [ RFC7240 ], used optionally by clients to supply a hint to help the server form a response that is most appropriate to the client's needs. The LDP-defined parameters suggest the portion(s) of a resource's state that the client application is interested in and, if received, is likely to be processed. LDP Containers with large numbers of associated documents and/or members will have large representations, and many client applications may be interested in processing only a subset of the LDPC 's information (for example, only membership triples or only containment triples), resulting in a potentially large savings in server, client, and network processing.
Non-normative note: LDP server implementers should carefully consider the effects of these preferences on caching, as described in section 2 of [ RFC7240 ].
Non-normative note: [ RFC7240 ] recommends that server implementers include a Preference-Applied response header when the client cannot otherwise determine the server's behavior with respect to honoring hints from the response content. Examples illustrate some cases where the header is unnecessary.
7.2.2 Specification.
7.2.2.1 The include hint defines a subset of a LDPR 's content that a client would like included in a representation. The syntax for the include parameter of the HTTP Prefer request header's return=representation preference [ RFC7240 ] is:
Where WSP is whitespace [ RFC5234 ], and ldp-uri-list is a double-quoted blank-delimited unordered set of URIs whose ABNF is given below. The generic preference BNF [ RFC7240 ] allows either a quoted string or a token as the value of a preference parameter; LDP assigns a meaning to the value only when it is a quoted string of the form:
ldp-uri-list = DQUOTE *WSP URI *[ 1*WSP URI ] *WSP DQUOTE.
where DQUOTE is a double quote [ RFC5234 ], and URI is an absolute URI with an optional fragment component [ RFC3986 ].
7.2.2.2 The omit hint defines a subset of a LDPR 's content that a client would like omitted from a representation. The syntax for the omit parameter of the HTTP Prefer request header's return=representation preference [ RFC7240 ] is:
Where WSP and ldp-uri-list are defined as above for include.
7.2.2.3 When LDP servers receive a request with conflicting hints, this specification imposes no requirements on their behavior. They are free to reject the request, process it applying some subset of the hints, or anything else appropriate to the server. [ RFC7240 ] suggests treating similar requests as though none of the conflicting preferences were specified.
7.2.2.4 This specification defines the following URIs for clients to use with include and omit parameters. It assigns no meaning to other URIs, although other specifications MAY do so.
Non-normative note: all currently defined URIs are only coherent for LDP-RSs, and in fact only for LDPCs , however in the future it is possible that additional URIs with other scopes of applicability could be defined.
7.2.3 Examples.
This section is non-normative.
If we assume a container like the one below:
Clients interested only in information about the container (for example, which membership predicate it uses) might use this hint on a GET request: Prefer: return=representation; include="w3/ns/ldp#PreferMinimalContainer"
A server that honors this hint would return a following response containing the HTTP header Preference-Applied: return=representation and this representation:
Request to example/netWorth/nw1/assets/ :
Clients interested only in information about the container (same as before) might use this hint instead: Prefer: return=representation; omit="w3/ns/ldp#PreferMembership w3/ns/ldp#PreferContainment" . Note: Treating the two as equivalent is not recommended. While today this omit parameter value is equivalent to the preceding include parameter value, they may not be equivalent in the future due to the definition of minimal-container triples. Clients should preferentially use the include parameter, as it more precisely communicates their needs.
A LDP 1.0 server that honors this hint would return the following response. Servers implementing later versions of LDP might return substantively different responses.
Request to example/netWorth/nw1/assets/ :
Clients interested only in information about the container (for example, which membership predicate it uses) and its membership might use this hint on a GET request: Prefer: return=representation; include="w3/ns/ldp#PreferMembership w3/ns/ldp#PreferMinimalContainer" .
A server that honors this hint would return (at least) the following response, and perhaps only this (it might well omit containment triples if they are not specifically requested). In cases like this example, where a client can detect from the content that its hints were honored (the presence of the predicates dcterms:title and o:asset demonstrate this in the representation below), there is no need for the server to include a Preference-Applied response header in many common cases like a 200 (OK) response. In other cases, like status code 303 , the header would still be required for the client to know that the 303 response entity is a representation of the resource identified by the Location URI instead of a short hypertext note (one with a hyperlink to the same URI reference provided in the Location header field [ RFC7231 ]).
Request to example/netWorth/nw1/assets/ :
8. Link Relations.
The intent is that these link relations will be registered with IANA per [ RFC5988 ] section 6.2.1.
8.1 describedby.
The contents of this section were originally taken from [ POWDER ] appendix D, and then modified to comply with the current registration template. The pre-LDP IANA link relation registry entry for describedby refers to a different section of [ POWDER ] that was substantively updated in an erratum, and that section was not actually the normative definition of the link relation. Since we expect no update to [ POWDER ] that incorporates the erratum or fixes the registry link, this superseding registration approach is being taken.
The following Link Relationship will be submitted to IANA for review, approval, and inclusion in the IANA Link Relations registry.
Relation Name: describedby Description: The relationship A describedby B asserts that resource B provides a description of resource A. There are no constraints on the format or representation of either A or B, neither are there any further constraints on either resource. Reference: The W3C Linked Data Platform specification. Notes: Descriptions of resources may be socially sensitive, may require processing to be understood and may or may not not be accurate. Consumers of descriptive resources should be aware of the source and chain of custody of the data. Security considerations for URIs (Section 7 of RFC 3986) and IRIs (Section 8 of RFC 3987) apply to the extent that describing resources may affect consumers' decisions about how or whether to retrieve those resources.
9. Security Considerations.
This section is non-normative.
As with any protocol that is implemented leveraging HTTP, implementations should take advantage of the many security-related facilities associated with it and are not required to carry out LDP operations that may be in contradistinction to a particular security policy in place. For example, when faced with an unauthenticated request to replace system critical RDF statements in a graph through the PUT method, applications may consider responding with the 401 status code (Unauthorized), indicating that the appropriate authorization is required. In cases where the provided authentication fails to meet the requirements of a particular access control policy, the 403 status code (Forbidden) can be sent back to the client to indicate this failure to meet the access control policy.
A. Acknowledgements.
This section is non-normative.
The following people have been instrumental in providing thoughts, feedback, reviews, content, criticism and input in the creation of this specification:
Arnaud Le Hors (chair), Alexandre Bertails, Andrei Sambra, Andy Seaborne, Antonis Loizou, Ashok Malhotra, Bart van Leeuwen, Cody Burleson, David Wood, Eric Prud'hommeaux, Erik Wilde, Henry Story, John Arwe, Kevin Page, Kingsley Idehen, Mark Baker, Martin P. Nally, Miel Vander Sande, Miguel Esteban Gutiérrez, Nandana Mihindukulasooriya, Olivier Berger, Pierre-Antoine Champin, Raúl García Castro, Reza B'Far, Richard Cyganiak, Rob Sanderson, Roger Menday, Ruben Verborgh, Sandro Hawke, Serena Villata, Sergio Fernandez, Steve Battle, Steve Speicher, Ted Thibodeau, Tim Berners-Lee, Yves Lafon.
B. Change History.
This section is non-normative.
The change history is up to the editors to insert a brief summary of changes, ordered by most recent changes first and with heading from which public draft it has been changed from.
Summary of notable changes from the Proposed Recommendation.

Change of control clause stock options

Why would someone use WHERE 1=1 AND <conditions> in a SQL clause (Either SQL obtained through concatenated strings, either view definition)
I've seen somewhere that this would be used to protect against SQL Injection, but it seems very weird.
If there is injection WHERE 1 = 1 AND injected OR 1=1 would have the same result as injected OR 1=1 .
Later edit: What about the usage in a view definition?
Thank you for your answers.
Still, I don't understand why would someone use this construction for defining a view, or use it inside a stored procedure.
Take this for example:
17 Answers.
If the list of conditions is not known at compile time and is instead built at run time, you don't have to worry about whether you have one or more than one condition. You can generate them all like:
and concatenate them all together. With the 1=1 at the start, the initial and has something to associate with.
I've never seen this used for any kind of injection protection, as you say it doesn't seem like it would help much. I have seen it used as an implementation convenience. The SQL query engine will end up ignoring the 1=1 so it should have no performance impact.
Just adding a example code to Greg's answer:
I've seen it used when the number of conditions can be variable.
You can concatenate conditions using an " AND " string. Then, instead of counting the number of conditions you're passing in, you place a "WHERE 1=1" at the end of your stock SQL statement and throw on the concatenated conditions.
Basically, it saves you having to do a test for conditions and then add a "WHERE" string before them.
Seems like a lazy way to always know that your WHERE clause is already defined and allow you to keep adding conditions without having to check if it is the first one.
1 = 1 expression is commonly used in generated sql code. This expression can simplify sql generating code reducing number of conditional statements.
Actually, I've seen this sort of thing used in BIRT reports. The query passed to the BIRT runtime is of the form:
and the '?' is replaced at runtime by an actual parameter value selected from a drop-down box. The choices in the drop-down are given by:
so that you get all possible values plus " * ". If the user selects " * " from the drop down box (meaning all values of a should be selected), the query has to be modified (by Javascript) before being run.
Since the "?" is a positional parameter and MUST remain there for other things to work, the Javascript modifies the query to be:
That basically removes the effect of the where clause while still leaving the positional parameter in place.
I've also seen the AND case used by lazy coders whilst dynamically creating an SQL query.
Say you have to dynamically create a query that starts with select * from t and checks:
some people would add the first with a WHERE and subsequent ones with an AND thus:
Lazy programmers (and that's not necessarily a bad trait) wouldn't distinguish between the added conditions, they'd start with select * from t where 1=1 and just add AND clauses after that.
where 1=0, This is done to check if the table exists. Don't know why 1=1 is used.
Indirectly Relevant: when 1=2 is used:
CREATE TABLE New_table_name as select * FROM Old_table_name WHERE 1 = 2;
this will create a new table with same schema as old table. (Very handy if you want to load some data for compares)
I found usefull this pattern when I'm testing or doublechecking things on the database, so I can comment very quickly other conditions:
While I can see that 1=1 would be useful for generated SQL, a technique I use in PHP is to create an array of clauses and then do.
thus avoiding the problem of having a leading or trailing AND. Obviously this is only useful if you know that you are going to have at least one clause!
Here's a closely related example: using a SQL MERGE statement to update the target tabled using all values from the source table where there is no common attribute on which to join on e. g.
Why would someone use WHERE 1=1 AND <proper conditions>
I've seen homespun frameworks do stuff like this ( blush ), as this allows lazy parsing practices to be applied to both the WHERE and AND Sql keywords.
For example (I'm using C# as an example here), consider the conditional parsing of the following predicates in a Sql query string builder :
The "benefit" of WHERE 1 = 1 means that no special code is needed:
For AND - whether zero, one or both predicates (Bars and Baz's) should be applied, which would determine whether the first AND is required. Since we already have at least one predicate with the 1 = 1 , it means AND is always OK. For no predicates at all - In the case where there are ZERO predicates, then the WHERE must be dropped. But again, we can be lazy, because we are again guarantee of at least one predicate.
This is obviously a bad idea and would recommend using an established data access framework or ORM for parsing optional and conditional predicates in this way.
If you came here searching for WHERE 1 , note that WHERE 1 and WHERE 1=1 are identical. WHERE 1 is used rarely because some database systems reject it considering WHERE 1 not really being boolean.
I first came across this back with ADO and classic asp, the answer i got was: performance. if you do a straight.
Select * from tablename.
and pass that in as an sql command/text you will get a noticeable performance increase with the.
added, it was a visible difference. something to do with table headers being returned as soon as the first condition is met, or some other craziness, anyway, it did speed things up.
Using a predicate like 1=1 is a normal hint sometimes used to force the access plan to use or not use an index scan. The reason why this is used is when you are using a multi-nested joined query with many predicates in the where clause where sometimes even using all of the indexes causes the access plan to read each table - a full table scan. This is just 1 of many hints used by DBAs to trick a dbms into using a more efficient path. Just don't throw one in; you need a dba to analyze the query since it doesn't always work.
I do this usually when I am building dynamic SQL for a report which has many dropdown values a user can select. Since the user may or may not select the values from each dropdown, we end up getting a hard time figuring out which condition was the first where clause. So we pad up the query with a where 1=1 in the end and add all where clauses after that.
Then we would build the where clause like this and pass it as a parameter value.
As the where clause selection are unknown to us at runtime, so this helps us a great deal in finding whether to include an 'AND' or 'WHERE'.
This is useful in a case where you have to use dynamic query in which in where clause you have to append some filter options. Like if you include options 0 for status is inactive, 1 for active. Based from the options, there is only two available options(0 and 1) but if you want to display All records, it is handy to include in where close 1=1. See below sample:

Alien Non-Interference Clause.
Edit Locked.
Even without ever having met a real culture from outer space, mankind has experienced firsthand the sort of disaster that can come from First Contact between a technologically-advanced society and a technologically-primitive and/or culturally-different one. Case in point: much of the European age of exploration and colonization included a great deal of war, exploitation, cultural assimilation (both forced and not) and even genocide across Asia, Africa, Australia and the Americas, including cultures that, according to modern research, may have been more advanced than we once believed.
It is for this reason and others that Science Fiction writers came up with the concept of the Alien Non-Interference Clause: in the future, it is believed, people will have learned from the mistakes of the past and take steps from preventing the same mistakes from recurring as humans explore space.
Of course, such rules are ultimately an Obstructive Code of Conduct that creates as many problems as it solves. Crash landing on an inhabited world when this rule is in force brings obvious difficulties. Trying to study an alien culture without being discovered is a popular scenario. And where do you draw the line? At exactly what point is a species officially "mature" enough to let them in on the secrets of the universe? Does non-interference mean you're morally obliged to let a species or members of a species suffer or die because it is their "natural development"? And what will happen when the "protectees" do develop advanced technology and discover that alien races have been watching them for generations… and consider themselves pretty darn righteous for their policy of non-assistance? And what should be done if the "protectees" are looking for extraterrestrial intelligence? There's also the little matter of how one defines a culture's "normal evolution" or "healthy development"; in addition to the aforementioned "letting them all die" aspect, if a society seems happy but social development has "stagnated", does that justify stepping in to nudge them in the right direction, or should you assume that they might possibly be able to do so in their own time?
A common twist on the trope is to have such a law in effect, and then come across an alien race that is eager to gain tech and knowledge from the humans. What happens then? Can you get away with telling the aliens You Are Not Ready? Where does the rule stop being about "preserving alien cultures" and start being about "keeping the humans (or The Federation) as the dominant power"? One ironic inversion is to have a second, more advanced set of aliens show up and refuse to help because they have this exact same clause, essentially turning the tables and putting the protagonist on the receiving end of this "benign neglect".
This also appears as the reason that aliens aware of our existence, or even visiting our planet in secret have not announced their presence to us. Usually, the condition to join interstellar society is the independent development of starships or Faster-Than-Light Travel, or at least to starting to colonise other planets in the Solar System.
Compare Helping Would Be Killstealing. Contrast Technology Uplift, when the aliens don't have this clause. See also Low Culture, High Tech, which is what the violation of this rule can sometimes lead to. Protagonists who tend to say Screw the Rules, I'm Doing What's Right! usually treat this as a Frequently-Broken Unbreakable Vow.
Dragon Ball Super : As explained by Gowasu, the Supreme Kai of Universe 10, the Kais are forbidden to interfere in the affairs of mortals; their job is to create life, watch over the mortals, and give them guidance. Unfortunately, Gowasu's apprentice, Zamasu, is firmly convinced that Humans Are Bastards and openly criticizes this policy, believing that The Gods Must Be Lazy. Please Teacher! is a rare example of the protagonist being severely punished for violating a noninterference clause. Mizuho is drummed out of the Observer Corps and her presence is wiped from the memories of all of the earthlings she came into contact with including her husband Kei. Waiting in the Summer : The Federation prohibits contact with primitive, "Class F" planets. The twist? The primitive planet is Earth. The Galaxy Police in Tenchi Muyo! tend to treat Earth as this. One story in the manga had an higher up order Mihoshi to use a special net to cloak a space-faring Biker Gang from being seen. However, the Juraians tend to pussyfoot around this and it's stated that First Contact's already been made and they think we're not ready to go yet. This is a kinda spoilerific plot point in Panzer World Galient . After Hilmuka is revealed to be a Human Alien from a sort of galaxy-spanning policing entity with a very Star Trek-esque non-interference directive, the story shows a bit of her struggle to help the people of Arst overthrow its Evil Overlord while fending off her Obstructive Bureaucrat colleagues. Conversely, Mardarl, said Evil Overlord, is also an alien from a similar civilization, but he could not care less about fucking up other planets in order to achieve his goals.
From Marvel Comics: The Watchers have an "observe, don't interfere" law in place (thus their species' name). Eventually revealed to be the result of accidentally destroying another species by giving its members advanced scientific knowledge way too soon. (Uatu, the Watcher who is assigned to Earth, violates this law rather frequently in order to protect the Earth, having taken a liking to its inhabitants, and he has often gotten in trouble with his people because of it.) One of Uatu's favorite methods of skirting the law when he doesn't flagrantly violate it is to simply show up to observe in person. Given that he can just as effectively watch an event from light-years away, the only purpose this serves is to warn Earth's heroes that something of cosmic significance is about to happen. In Krypton No More storyline: Superman gets obsessed with stopping Earth from becoming another Krypton, and fearing pollution could destroy it, he goes on a rampage, destroying supertankers until his cousin Supergirl stops him, declaring that neither of them has right to impose their will on humans.
Superman: Supergirl! Glad you're here! You can help me! This ship is a danger to all mankind — So we have to—
Supergirl: Wrong! We aren't doing anything! We have no right to interfere!
Last Child of Krypton : Defied hard by Jor-El , who specifically chose Earth to send the rocket to because they need the most interference. In Origins , a Mass Effect / Star Wars / Borderlands / Halo Massive Multiplayer Crossover, the Eridians have one on paper at least, but considering how much meddling has happened under the guise "If you do things right, the lesser races will not know you did anything", enforcement is weak at best. Contrast with the Trans-Galactic Republic that will happily engage in a Technology Uplift if the society in question agrees (though said uplift tends to happen on the Republic's terms). A faction of Eridians created the Yuuzhan Vong in tubes, stripped the Force from the galaxies, and left Forgotten Superweapons nearly everywhere in the name of avoiding a greater threat. Considering that threat is the Flood, they may have a point. The Angels from Sonic X: Dark Chaos have a strong non-interference policy regarding Demon border galaxies in general and the Milky Way (and Earth) in particular. It's only when the Demons start moving in and curb-stomping the Metarex that they take action and invade the galaxy in retaliation. Bait and Switch (STO) : In The Wrong Reflection Captain Kanril Eleya invokes the Prime Directive as a reason why she can't tell the Klingon-Cardassian Alliance how to build a cloaking device (that and the fact that, per Star Trek Online 's backstory, it would probably violate standing orders from the President). However, she does decide that she can even the odds and tell them how to defeat the Terran Empire's cloaking devices, which they had acquired via third-party interference from the prime universe. In A Voice in the Wilderness Eleya uses the Prime Directive as an excuse for not retaliating against D'trel for killing General Q'Nel with the backing of the Delta Alliance. It's stated later that she agrees with D'trel that Q'Nel had to go, though "political assassination isn't exactly in the handbook". The Mysterious Case of Neelix's Lungs : "Factoring Primes" is a rewrite of the Star Trek: Voyager episode "Prime Factors", and likewise has the cast debate the relative merits of the Prime Directive in the context that the Sikarians are using their own version as a reason not to give space-folding technology to Voyager and Vetar . Harry Kim brings up the argument of Earth's history indicating that even well-intentioned interference in other cultures can be disastrous (an argument Picard threw in one TNG episode). Tom Paris disagrees, pointing out that most of the cases of interference in other cultures on Earth were either purely self-interested with people either not caring about the other culture, or outright conquering them. Celes Tal, a Bajoran enlisted crewman of Voyager , gives a flat What the Hell, Hero? regarding the Federation using the Prime Directive as an excuse to not involve itself in the occupation of Bajor by the Cardassians.
Hard to Be a God is a whole movie dedicated to the dilemma of a human observer on a "primitive" alien planet with one interesting twist: the main reason for his superiors to send him there was to "observe the observer" — see if he would be able to avoid getting involved. (In fact, since 2008, there are two movies.) In K-PAX , prot[sic], the mental patient/possible extraterrestrial refuses to elaborate on the mechanics of light-beam travel, as at our relatively primitive stage of civilization, he's concerned humans would end up using it as an apocalyptic weapon.
In the World of Lone Wolf , the Shianti are a race of demigods that settled on Magnamund thousands of years ago. On request from the goddess Ishir, they are now forbidden from interfering in human affairs, even though Wytch-King Shasarak, one of their number, is doing just that . Of course, when a human baby accidentally lands on their island, there ain't no rule about teaching him to use magic and "allowing" him to go into the world to deal with the threat.
Star Maker , a 1937 novel by Olaf Stapledon (who inspired many of the "golden age" sci-fi writers) has the Symbiont race, Sufficiently Advanced Aliens who keep their existence hidden from "pre-utopian", pre-spacefaring races, revealing themselves only after a race achieves both of those so the fledgling races don't lose their "independence of mind" (pretty similar to the Vulcans that came after). Speaker for the Dead takes place millennia after the events in Ender's Game and Ender in Exile . The Starways Congress have enacted the rule to prevent any other sentient species discovered from immediately becoming enemies of humanity. Speaker takes place on Lusitania, where the first alien species since the Buggers have been discovered. The pequeninos ("piggies") are initially viewed as inferior, due to their lack of technological milestones such as electricity, metalworking or archery. When the humans discover the piggies are aware of spaceships, and wish to become space explorers themselves, there is considerable commotion among the xenologists. The public controversy draws out the dark side ("Human superiority first!") of the trope. The pequeninos' attempts at jumping a few branches up the Technology Tree is eventually described—by a human, no less—as a sentient species (the piggies) exercising their rights as a sentient species to engage in trade and commerce with visiting extra-terrestrials (humans) for the betterment of piggy-kind. Children of the Mind begins with the Starway Congress fleet on their way to destroy the entire frigging planet, with this as a partial reason. Animorphs : "The Law of Seerow's Kindness", a law passed by the Andalites forbidding them to share technology with less developed species. It was named after Prince Seerow, who passed technology onto the Puppeteer Parasite Yeerks, unintentionally allowing them to become the Big Bad species of the series. The justification for this law is it protects primitive races from other primitive races by denying them the means to wage galactic war, but it dooms the Hork-Bajir and would have doomed humanity (and many other races) if Elfangor hadn’t broken it. As the as the series goes on that justification sounds increasingly hollow as the Andalites desperately try to cling onto their technological advantage, and show just how willing they are to sacrifice their allies to save themselves. The Ellimist and Crayak also have rules about when they can and can't interact with other species, but for a different reason: the Ellimist wants to spread life and freedom, Crayak wants to spread genocide, and any open conflict between them would literally destroy both of them and everything else in the universe. Essentially, they're in a Cold War-style standoff, which is why they each either have to agree to let the other work openly or else act subtly enough to keep the other from knowing. Tolkien's Legendarium: By the time of the trilogy , the Valar could be said to have taken up a style of this similar to the Ellimist and Crayak: They tried to fight Morgoth directly, and the results were not pretty for Arda . They (and the related Maiar) are not exactly hiding, though; there are plenty of people in Middle-Earth (Galadriel, for example) who have personally met the Valar, Gandalf is a Maia, and Elrond is descended from one. The Istari, meanwhile, are Maiar wizards sent to Middle-Earth to oppose Sauron. Nonetheless, they have a looser version of this trope in effect, in that they are forbidden from opposing Sauron by meeting power with power; their job is to organize and inspire the people of Middle-Earth against Sauron, not to fight the war for them. Hence, Gandalf doesn't use magic to solve the plot on his own because it's not his role, and the one Wizard who actually breaks this rule has already fallen to evil and allied with Sauron. Elizabeth Moon's Remnant Population has "The People", Starfish Aliens who until events in the book, unwittingly share their planet with human colonists. After some humans try to land new colony ships on their nests (and get killed for it), they seek out and find Ofelia, the willing last human of a failed colony hundreds of miles away, who kept the colony's tech running for her own use. Unaware of the non-interference rule (which exists even though humans have never met another intelligent species, as they made many assumptions about what aliens will be like), Ofelia has to show and explain things like electricity to The People, initially so their curiosity doesn't kill them with a high voltage current. But it turns out The People are extremely intelligent and hungry for knowledge, to the surprise of all and the chagrin of the human officials and scientists who get sent to "undo the damage" (some with good but misinformed intentions and some crossing the line into "keeping the humans in charge"). Much of the Strugatsky Brothers' Noon Universe novels revolve around various aspects of this and its plausibility: Hard to Be a God investigates how would a human observer fare on a planet stuck in The Dung Ages, while allowed limited intervention at best (for example, he may save a promising scientist deemed heretical by the Inquisition but has no authority to stop the planet from sliding into even further barbarism after a corrupt church gains power). Prisoners of Power revolves around a civilian protagonist inadvertently crashing on a Diesel Punk world rife with pointless nuclear warfare. He single-handedly forms a plan to overthrow the government and their means of Mind Control. and coincidentally ruins the plan of undercover Earth operatives to solve the planet's issues in a far safer and more gradual way which, however, is implied to take decades if not centuries . Amy Thomson's The Color of Distance and Through Alien Eyes have humanity making first contact with a technologically primitive society of froglike aliens called the Tendu. They have little technology, but they do have impressive medical abilities; they can physically modify creatures, including themselves and humans, and heal just about anything. Humanity has to make reparations for burning down an important chunk of rainforest before they knew the Tendu were there, but they can't violate the protocols in doing so, to the Tendu's frustration; they know what humans have and are fascinated by it. When one of the Tendu decides to come to Earth, he responds to some of the doubts by saying that he, too, will abide by the protocols, and not teach humanity anything that it's not ready for. Also in Darkover by Marion Zimmer Bradley: the humans have a directive never to interfere in the business of aliens, not even if the conflict seems as meaningless as the question how to open an egg. One really wonders who makes such stupid decisions. In C. S. Lewis's That Hideous Strength , the planetary spirits are forbidden to intervene in Earth's affairs. Unfortunately for the bad guys, they are not forbidden to respond if Earth intervenes in theirs. In Ursula K. Le Guin's Hainish Cycle, first contact teams are often sent to rather primitive planets, and many such civilizations are incorporated in the interstellar civilization — since it believes that even non-technological races have a lot to contribute (arts or philosophy). However, there is an embargo on teaching technology without authorization by the government. Planet of Exile demonstrates the point when a human is wounded by an enemy dart, and must be careful, since while the natives use no poisons, the Earth Lost Colony does, and the used darts are sometimes fired back. In the Star Trek Expanded Universe novel Uhura's Song , Kirk gets an order directly from the Federation President and the Commander of Starfleet. To emphasize (to both the readers and the characters) the severity of the situation (a plague that is threatening to cause the collapse of the Federation and kill a large portion of the population of multiple species), the President makes the following statement: "The Federation Council has agreed to waive the non-interference directive." That almost-casual statement is the President telling Kirk that the PRIME DIRECTIVE IS OFF THE TABLE. Enchantress from the Stars talks quite a bit about the implications of this trope. Short version: it's worth it in the very, very long run, but damn does it suck in the short run. The Bible . In the book of Job, Satan invokes a variant of the prime directive to legally bind God from helping Job and to allow Job to suffer. Also, in the Book of Genesis, when Adam forgoes God's rulership, God leaves, probably due to this directive. Then the other books carry through the theme of the hope of when God would or could intervene/interfere fully in human affairs again. (The Ransom story arc deals with this.) In Mikhail Akhmanov's Trevellyan's Mission series, humanity and many other starfaring races specifically invert this trope, believing themselves to be duty-bound to help guide younger races, although they go to great lengths to avoid revealing themselves. The series goes into great detail as to the criteria for choosing which humanoid species to "progress", as attempts to help an alien species at the wrong stage of development ultimately made things worse for them. Some are hinted to have resulted in extinctions. As such, only pre-Renaissance races are interfered with. On one occasion, the human scientists and their Kni'lina counterparts are debating which of two Stone Age species which evolved on one world to eliminate. The first novel specifically deals with the protagonist attempting to figure out why a world is stuck in Medieval Stasis and why humanity's attempts at making changes utterly fail. It turns out the cause is a previously-unknown advanced alien race who follows a strict policy of non-interference except to stop a major threat against the very survival of the younger races. These "Paraprims" are Technical Pacifists who have descended from primates but are not humanoids (they're more like chimps and still have fur). Usually averted in David Brin's Uplift series. "Pre-sentient" species are nearly always uplifted by the time they reach a stone age level of technology at the latest. However the Institute of Migration often designates planets or even entire regions of space to "lie fallow" for several million years so their ecosystems can recover before allowing re-colonization. Earth was in the middle of a cluster of fallow systems that had been devastated in a war and was overlooked (except perhaps by our mysterious Neglectful Precursors, but we'll never know if they existed). Iain M. Banks' The Culture novels are basically a reaction against the silliness of the Prime Directive. The Culture, especially its exploratory organisation Contact, see it as their moral duty to make other civilizations (usually those less advanced) more like the Culture (and by implication, statistically better and happier). It usually takes the form of making sure the right rulers stay alive long enough to make their world a better place; whether through alien medicine or impossibly proficient bodyguards and armies. There are factions within the Culture who feel that this practice is wrong, resulting in diaspora like the Peace Faction (who believe in pacifistic non-interaction) and the Elench (who believe that they should be the ones changed by alien planets, not the other way round). And this doesn't even count the actions of Contact's darker cousin, Special Circumstances. Elizabeth Bear's novel Undertow has an inversion: If a planet is inhabited, humans can only colonize it if the natives are pre-space. As you might expect, this sometimes results in a situation similar to what happened in most European colonies. But that's not even the best part. The book's major twist is that the natives of the world the book takes place on voluntarily gave up space travel and reverted to a pre-technological state. Which according to a literal interpretation of the Alien Non-Interference Clause, means the current colony is illegal. Patricia Mc Killip wrote a duology ( Moon Flash and The Moon And The Face ) that discusses this with two dissimilar cultures on one planet. Creator//Gregory Mc Donald wrote Fletch Too about visiting Africa and the discussion arose that concerned the rightness of Africa being put under a glass shield to protect them from technology/interference/etc. Jack McDevitt's short story "Kaminsky at War" (set in the Priscilla Hutchins universe) explores the morality of such a rule, from the perspective of a researcher observing a planet locked in an endless and pointless war. The very first Honor Harrington novel involves the technologically-primitive Medusans, who the Manticorans try to keep semi-isolated from modern tech (traders can sell steel tools but nothing powered, for instance), assisted by the fact the planet really doesn't have anything anyone wants (Apart from its location on a major trade/possible invasion route). When the Peeps provide advanced breechloading rifled muskets to assorted nomadic tribes, carefully designed so that they could be replicated with existing Medusan technology, the Manticoran governor sadly accepts the Manticorans will probably have to provide similar weapons to the more civilized (and friendly) Medusan city-states so they can defend themselves. In the back story of the Foreigner series, the Pilots' Guild (the leaders of the thoroughly lost Phoenix starship) want all the humans to stay in orbit in their Space Station rather than land on the life-bearing planet below so as to not contaminate the culture of the indigenous sapient species. Or at least they claim that's their reason for not wanting anyone to go down to the planet. The humans who eventually do land on the planet think that the Guild doesn't give a crap about the indigenous population, and that their Alien Non-Interference Clause is merely a pretext to keep all humans in the system under their control. It turns out that they were both wrong and right. The Guild did have some genuine concern about humans contaminating the indigenous culture, but that was nonetheless a pretext for their greater concern: that aliens would contaminate human culture. The protagonist of the story, a descendant of the humans who landed on the planet, has as his main job to turn over human tech to the alien natives - but only at a rate won't disrupt their culture or society, and he specifically has veto powers to make sure of it. In L. Sprague de Camp's Viagens Interplanetarias stories, the Terrans are specifically forbidden from importing technology to the warlike inhabitants of the planet Krishna. Enforcement of the rule is done by electronic brainwashing so that even if the natives capture and torture a visitor, they are unable to reveal anything. Note that clever ways to evade this rule drive the plots of several stories. The Empire of Man in Jerry Pournelle's "CoDominium" future (also used in The Mote in God's Eye ) uses both an inversion and a subversion of this rule. Low-tech planets are routinely taken over and ruled as colonies, but spacefaring societies are allowed to join the Empire as member worlds with much more control over their own affairs. Note that (with one exception) all the planets are lost human colonies in the first place. In the novel King David's Spaceship some primitive but far from stupid people from a world with Victorian level technology go to desperate lengths to develop space travel to avoid being colonized, only to run into the subversion: There actually are laws against supplying "disruptive" technologies to colony worlds. So there actually is a non-interference clause but it's only applied in ways that benefit the powers that be. They actually manage to build a Victorian technology spaceship (which they freely admit would be suicidal if there hadn't been an Imperial Battle Cruiser in orbit only to be sanctioned as a member world for providing Renaissance level technology to an even more primitive society. In Andre Norton's Ice Crown , all worlds that are Psychocrat experiments are sealed, on the grounds that the trauma of the truth might be too great. When Roane finds the conditioning still in action, her uncle points out that removing it could have horrible effects on its subjects. In David Drake's Ranks of Bronze The Federation prohibits the use of advanced weaponry on primitive planets, ostensibly for the primitive's sake but really to prevent them from getting ideas and becoming a threat. In addition, other forms of contact such as trade in raw materials, or slaves, are allowed with primitives. Trade Guilds can even strong-arm primitives into accepting trade deals so long as they stick to muscle-powered wea pons, which is why one Guild buys a Roman Legion from Carrhae. Averted in the Eldraeverse . There's actually a "Speculativism Index" for rough estimates of how easy it would be to sell uncontacted planets advanced technology based on their science-fiction. The Ones Above from Brandon Sanderson's "Sixth Of The Dusk" are spacefaring humans, who are not allowed to interfere with the primitive humans of Dusk's world, not even to trade some of their technology. It's compared to adults refusing to trade with children; no matter how clever the child is, it's still exploitative. However, there's a loophole: They leave behind some of their technology where the primitives can find it, in the hopes that they will advance too quickly, and the Ones Above will be able to legally trade with them before they're actually ready . The Enlightened League, in Year Zero is made up of all alien species that survived long enough to achieve warp travel and similar technological milestones, and they have this rule. It's strict self-preservation: most species that fail to join the league do so because they've obliterated themselves in nuclear war or similar disasters, and giving such primitive species high-tech weapons is highly illegal for reasons of safety. In the short novel The Librarian (2015) the aliens become the target species from birth in order to learn how they live, to the point that not even the aliens themselves know they're not the native species until they die. This prevents any kind of outside interference or prejudices to murk the experience. The dragons of Dragonvarld , although not technically aliens, have laws which play out much like this, preventing them from having much to do with humanity. A breach of these laws before the start of the books — specifically, the conquest of a human kingdom by a dragon — sets up the main plot. In the Sector General series The Federation does practice a form of this trope under normal circumstances, but involving the eponymous space hospital is shorthand for "screw it". In the interstellar society of Samuel R. Delany's Empire Star , there's a more complicated and limited version about the distribution of technology. If a culture is "simplex", you may import higher-tech stuff into it, because the culture won't have the imagination to do anything much with it anyway. If it's "complex", you can't bring in higher-tech stuff because it could create a social upheaval. Simplex and complex aren't themselves concepts indicating technological advancement as such, more like the narrowness or breadth of the culture's thinking. Guardians of the Flame : Utterly averted-at least in the first four books, none of the main band even stops to think if it's ethically or morally justified to introduce huge changes into the sociopolitical culture of another world note Of course considering that this is slavery , it would likely be practiced for many more centuries on absent intervention and they did make an effort to establish a better system. . For example by them introducing guns, which triggers an arms race and trying to end slavery by violent attacks on slaver caravans rather than waiting to see if it comes about naturally as society evolves past the need for or permitting slavery. Not to mention setting up their own kingdom , forever changing the geopolitical makeup of the world. Possibly justified by the fact that Arthur Deighton/Arta Myrdhyn had already seriously interfered (including fighting a massive magical duel that laid waste to an entire valley) though it's not made clear whether he's an earth or local native. In Christopher Anvil's story The Royal Road , the spacefaring human civilisation has rules against interfering with less developed civilisations. Or rather, against overtly interfering; bribery and coercion are out, but the Planetary Development Authority are prepared to turn a blind eye to more subtle forms of influence.
Star Trek is the Trope Codifier: whether or not they did it first, they're the one most people have likely heard about. The series has been somewhat inconsistent over where the borders of the rule lie. One fairly consistent point is that unless the culture in question is already aware of sentient life beyond their planet, or is technologically advanced enough (i. e. they possess warp drive) that such contact is inevitable in the immediate future, it's forbidden for Federation personnel to expose their existence to the aliens of the week. Multiple stories involve this being violated by accident, requiring the crew to scramble to do damage control. Standard procedure in the TNG era seems to be inducing Laser-Guided Amnesia via invasive brain surgery . There is usually a hole somewhere "big enough to fly the Enterprise through". Gene Coon, who is credited with creating it in Star Trek: The Original Series , reportedly remarked that his original intent was for it to apply only to viable pre-warp cultures.
Space 1889 So averted it’s downright inverted. Europeans actually consider it a good thing if not an outright duty to intervene on Mars and spread the blessings of their civilization to others willy-nilly. In Classic Traveller , the Scout service asked for Red Zone classification for planets with developing civilizations to protect them from off world interference. Though most of the time the Third Imperium will reveal itself to TL 5 (approx. mid-20th century) planets, or whenever they decide the locals can comprehend the existence of extraterrestrial life. Manhunter . The A. T.P. D.S. places Protected World status on planets with young civilizations to stop interference that could change the course of the civilization's natural advancement. It also has laws that prevent its citizens from interfering with the civilizations on unexplored planets.
The Pangalactic Federation of Star Ocean has the Undeveloped Planet Preservation Pact, which differs from the Star Trek version in that people don't get in as much trouble if they break out the advanced tech to save their own lives. The UP3 was made with good reason, even if only a handful of the architects of it knew the real reason why it was put in place - someone did destroy a planet by providing advanced tech, and became the main architect of the UP3 as a result. Which may be somewhat of a plot hole when you consider that in the rules of the UP3, a 20th century world can be upgraded from "Protected Planet" (no interference) to "Developing Planet" (eligible for contact and technological uplifting). The planet that was destroyed leading to the creation of the UP3 was mid-20th century. On the other hand, it can also be interpreted as cooler heads prevailing, and realizing that one guy feeling guilty about picking up the Idiot Ball and giving antimatter to a Mad Scientist who blows up her planet with it doesn't mean other worlds can't be contacted in a more reasonable manner. Mass Effect plays with this trope a fair bit. While none of the civilizations of the verse have such a rule, salarian scientist Mordin Solus holds the view that there should be one, citing the fiasco with the krogan as an example. Background: as a primitive species, the krogan had been given advanced technology to help turn around a losing Bug War against the rachni. But the krogans' prodigious birth rate (previously balanced out by the fact that they came from a Death World where only one in a thousand krogan survived to reach adulthood), combined with their natural aggression, led to them turning around and becoming as much of a menace to other sapient species as the aforementioned rachni. It took the "genophage" sterility plague to keep them from overrunning the galaxy. We learn in Mass Effect 2 's Lair of the Shadow Broker DLC that when new pre-spaceflight races are discovered, the Citadel sends "First Contact Teams" to their home planets to begin sharing technology, updating translators and explaining Citadel laws and culture to the newly discovered species, preparing them to join the galactic scene. Then they ran into the yahg, a species even more brutal than the krogan, who massacred the first contact team. This led to the Council 'blockading' the planet, preventing anyone getting off it (with one exception, an individual that was snuck off-planet possibly as a sort of living trophy. The sneaker was The Shadow Broker, and that yahg took his place by killing him, and remained on that throne for sixty years until Liara came along. ) So while they don't hold a general rule requiring it, they do seem to adopt this policy on a case-by-case basis. Then it's revealed in the next game that the salarians are planning to uplift the yahg as shock troops. One has to wonder why salarian culture revolves around science if they never seem to learn from mistakes. This forms part of the backstory before the game. The turians first discovered humanity trying to activate an uncharted mass relay, and intervened because doing so is a major faux-pas: the last time someone did it, they found the rachni, which ended well. Of course, instead of contacting the humans and explaining what was going on (how were pre-contact humanity supposed to know an unknown Galactic Law prevents them from tinkering with the relays?), the turians opened fire instead. This started a 3-month-long conflict which humans call "the First Contact War" and turians "the Relay 314Incident." It only ended when the Council finally learned of the situation. The Council were naturally furious to find out that the turians had performed a pre-emptive strike on an unknown species without getting authorisation. The geth enforce this on themselves as they believe all species should self-determinate. Subverted with the Protheans , as revealed in Mass Effect 3 . When a civilization showed promise, they would make the that civilization an offer: Join the Prothean empire, or be conquered. Those who resisted would inevitably be conquered and forcibly uplifted to become part of the Protheans' galaxy-spanning empire. Either way, cultural assimilation was enforced , such that any number of species might call themselves Prothean . Renegade Shepard can call out the Prothean Javik for his race leaving technology behind, uplifting races forcefully and genetically engineering natural biotic ability onto the asari and leaving them the most advanced of their technology , saying "We didn't earn it ourselves", but Javik counters that they had to do this to unite the galaxy to fight off a Reaper genocide. In the upcoming MMO Star Citizen, the United Empire of Earth has passed the Fair Chance Act, which prohibits hostile terraforming, mining, or most other forms of Human intervention on any planet with indigenous life of reasonable potential to develop sentience within space discovered and subsequently incoporated into the UEE, prior to the events of the game. Violators can face everything up to and including the might of UEE's military forces. Unfortunately, as the UEE becomes overextended over time, universal enforcement of the act proves difficult. The Protoss of StarCraft had this policy ever since an incident with a minor race called the Kalath. Some researchers revealed themselves in an attempt to stop a civil war and both sides attacked the Protoss instead, Collossi were built and used to decimate their population, which was a major My God, What Have I Done? for the culture, leading to the Colossi being sealed away and a strict no-interference policy being established as long as there was no threat to the Protoss themselves. The Protoss even considered the warp-capable Terrans to qualify as a lesser race under that policy and only revealed themselves to "purify" Terran colonies that became infested by the Zerg, because while the Terrans weren't a threat, the Zerg were . It's revealed in Legacy of the Void that the Xel'naga also had such a clause. This causes the Protoss quite a bit of concern considering they know the Xel'naga uplifted them . In other words their uplifting was illegal , and thus must have been done by renegade Xel'naga, of which there are onlytwo . In Kingdom Hearts , the protagonists have a self-imposed "No meddling" rule that's summarized as "Don't let anybody know you're from another world" and "Don't interfere in the normal affairs of the world you're visiting". The only exceptions allowed is when it would go against not stopping the bad guys which are using dimension-invading monsters you're supposed to be fighting. This rule is mostly forgotten in subsequent games, mostly because the villains have meddled so much that the jig is already up, and not meddling further would probably lead to the collapse of the universe. In an interesting twist, the villains actually play to this more than the heroes do, at least in 358/2 Days where several levels have Stealth Based Missions. By the time of II , however, their plan is almost complete and they can afford to be much more open in their manipulations. In Kingdom Hearts: Birth by Sleep , the three protagonists are part of an order of Keyblade knights sworn to keep order in the Realm of Light after the Keyblade War shattered it into pieces . While they adhere to the "don't tell locals about other worlds" part of the rule, they have free reign to act openly otherwise due to the Unversed invasion (it's implied that they'd be forbidden to interfere otherwise). Terra ends up violating the clause-such as it is-by telling a young Riku about the world outside Destiny Island and even passes the ability to wield the Keyblade to him , setting him up for his Start of Darkness at the beginning of the series . In Stellaris Empires can set their own policies on what level of observation of native species is allowed, influenced by their ethics. Xenophiles don't approve of abducting primitives for study or indoctrination, but they're often all too willing to uplift them. While Xenophobic empires may do anything they want to pre-FTL races except uplift, up to and including covert or overt invasion. In Star Trek Online , we find out that this is the main reason the Iconians were nearly killed off: they had incredible technology and lesser races wanted it. However, the Iconians feared they would use it for terrible purposes and refused to allow them access at that scale if they weren't sufficiently advanced enough. However, the races grew insanely jealous and thought the Iconians arrogant, thus they ended up bombarding Iconia in order to get the technology. They didn't succeed. In The Elder Scrolls series, this is a belief (though seemingly not a true rule) of the Psijic Order, a powerful Magical Society and the oldest monastic order in Tamriel. While they do offer to serve as advisors (a sacred duty which they call "seliffrnsae," meaning "grave and faithful counsel",) they do not intervene in the affairs of other groups, preferring to let events play out from afar. The few times they've violated this have been to avert events with The End of the World as We Know It level consequences (such as sinking the Maormer fleet and confiscating the Eye of Magnus). They've even been known to remove all trace of Artaeum, their home island, from the physical world during times of extreme political chaos presumably so no one group could attempt to use them against another.
In Spacetrawler "Dark Planets" home to sapient life with no significant space presence are not supposed to be contacted. The system is still ripe for exploitation: species can be declared non-sapient for spurious reasons like bad fashion sense , and species who do achieve space travel immediately become fair game for any other species to conquer. The truth turns out to be more insidious, Qwahntoo, the founder of the GOB, used the classification to cut off planets he considered to be threats. For instance humans are related to the Eebs that he enslaved. Deconstructed (as part of an extended Take That! against Trek in general) in Quentyn Quinn, Space Ranger . The "First Law" is pointed out to have been written to keep con artists from starting cargo cults. not to ignore when a civilization is to be eaten by an alien probe, just because they haven't mastered FTL yet. Unfortunately, this is all pointed out by the Wesley of the crew, who (despite basically being the only person onboard with half a brain) is promptly told to shut up about halfway through his explanation. In a later arc the hero's government convicts the Picard-parody of eight million counts of negligent homicide for refusing to divert a comet that wiped out a bronze age civilization he and his ship were observing. The judges even go so far as to call the Federation's policies "racist". Schlock Mercenary : Deconstructed via author's note . Of course, the civilization Tagon was running guns to was already being exploited and enslaved by other aliens, so Prime Directive type rules probably wouldn't apply anyway. Later, when the company is hiding from the Teraport Wars, they discover a primitive planet with two species on it. The first are pseudo-whales who meet the mercenaries when one of them tries to eat the captain, who quite justifiably kills it. While the company chaplain is trying to figure out if it was sentient, the rest of the company is eating it. And when the chaplain complains that he needed to examine the brain they ate, he is told "We can always kill a few more for you. We can get more brains."
The second are a humanoid tool-using species Schlock encounters while fighting a carnivorous plant. Once again, the chaplain is wondering whether or not they should interfere, while some of the company have already taught the natives volleyball, and the demolitions expert is almost done teaching them how to make gunpowder. When the company has to leave, they leave behind an Uplift robot to bring the humanoids up to a modern standard of living in just a few generations. Unfortunately, the natives toss it into a volcano in an attempt to bring the mercenaries back. Fortunately, the ensuing eruption ("Shhka. ") forced the land-dwelling natives to migrate closer to the ocean and the experience of meeting and interacting with the mercenaries made them less suspicious of outsiders allowing them to form a mutually beneficial alliance with pseudo-whales when they climbed up on the beach. It also forced them to migrate across the ocean before a massive super-eruption occurred that would otherwise have wiped them out. While they don't seem to follow it too strictly, the Nemesites in The Inexplicable Adventures of Bob! have a non-interference policy toward Earth in the form of designating us as a nature preserve, because any species without interstellar travel is considered wildlife. While this was initially treated as a joke, Voluptua has since pointed out that, at least in the short run, it is probably a good thing for us, since inducting us suddenly into the Space Empire which surrounds us would create total havoc on Earth.
In the podcast story Space Casey humans have interplanetary travel but the "Old Ones" are keeping them isolated from galactic society, ostentatiously for our own good. Though they do allow one researcher to come to our system once every hundred years or so. And eventually it turns out that the "Old Ones" are just a pair of con artists pulling a fast one on the galaxy with some technology from the future. In STO Forum: Versus thread (rp) Eleya grumbles a bit about the Prime Directive ("I am so getting court-martialled for that") after Kang stun-snipes a priestess to stop her from performing a Human Sacrifice (she was trying to avoid interfering too much, but they were low on water and needed to trade). Kang justifies himself by the fact that the Klingons don't have a PD-equivalent: they work it on a case-by-case basis. Eleya also considers that they may have deterred them from performing more sacrifices in the future, which is probably a net positive. The Jenkinsverse has an ineffective version of this that reads more like wildlife conservation than any effort to preserve the cultural identity of fellow sophonts.
Parodied by Futurama with Directive B10.8:1 A. K.A. "Brannigan's Law"; the law itself is pretty straight but Brannigan doesn't actually understand it himself, and ends up breaking it at one point. As Leela points out in the episode this comes up in, the law is inconsistently applied. In this case, it prevents people from interfering by evacuating the local life-forms from a planet which is doomed because people already came and interfered by mining out its entire core. In Superman: The Animated Series , Mr. Mxyzptlk's species had something like this; in his second appearance, the rulers of his dimension put him on trial for "meddling with an under-evolved species" (along with violating dimensional travel laws, and worst of all, not keeping his word, which is apparently a serious crime there). As punishment, he was banished to Earth's dimension (without his powers) and required to do a good deed for the inhabitants. Superman ordered him to perform three months' community service as his good deed. on Bizarro World. Averted in 3-2-1 Penguins! , judging how the penguins just bring Jason and/or Michelle aboard their ship so nonchalantly without any regard to whatever consequences come with abducting two children from a planet that hasn't developed faster-than-light space travel.
The Other Wiki has a list of peoples who have kept culturally isolated or were until fairly recently. Most of them have an estimated 300 or fewer people (which is not a sustainable population without massive problems due to inbreeding). In general, uncontacted people are left alone to protect them from disease, or because they are actively hostile. The Fermi Paradox is the unresolved question of why we haven't had aliens visiting since before we even evolved into modern humans. After all, our sun is relatively young, and there would have been more than enough time since the beginning of the universe for a Galactic Superpower to have formed. One answer is the "zoo hypothesis," which states that aliens are under some equivalent of the Prime Directive. Or, less benignly, that they want us to stay lab rats, or not become a potential rival. Though others have suggested that aliens aren't interfering with us because we're just not that interesting and a third that believes it's because They get wiped out before reaching the technological capacity to travel interstellar distances. NASA once prevented the Galileo probe, which was exploring Jupiter, from crashing into the moon Europa. Europa has a chance of holding life, and they don't want risk "infecting" the moon with microbes from Earth, which could kill all life on Europa before it is even confirmed to exist. (They de-orbited Galileo into Jupiter instead.) note The Cassini spacecraft, currently in orbit around Saturn, is expected to be deorbited into Saturn in September 2017 to avoid contamination of the moon Enceladus, known to have a subsurface water ocean. Juno , a probe currently orbiting Jupiter, will suffer the same fate for the same reasons once its mission ends. For the protection of any ecosystems that might exist on possibly life-bearing worlds, there exist specific international rules governing how "clean" spacecraft must be if they are going to contact such worlds. NASA has Planetary Protection Officers charged with overseeing the compliance with these rules. ( Galileo itself would have been in the least strict classification, being a remote sensing platform that would not be expected to physically contact a possibly life-bearing world. The Huygens lander was in a higher category, since it was to land on a world we cannot be certain contains no life of any kind. A lander like Viking is in the most strict category, since it needs to be both clean enough to not risk contaminating the target world, but also its own life-detecting experiments. This is required because it was proven with the portions of the Surveyor 3 probe recovered by Apollo 12 that microbes can survive for years in protected spots inside spacecraft otherwise exposed to open space.) Laws established for the protection of endangered species often require that they be left entirely undisturbed by humans, even when taking action might preserve individual members of that species (e. g. letting baby sea turtles crawl into the sea without help). Like the Prime Directive, this can have bizarrely inconsistent effects. Areas are made inaccessible to development because they are an edge territory for a protected species, while the nearby area where they thrive has no protection at all. Surtsey. A volcanic island that emerged from the Atlantic off the southern coast of Iceland in November 1963 as a result of an underwater volcano eruption. As it offered an uncomparable opportunity to study the process of biocolonization of the completely barren and dead rock, it is strictly protected from any human intervention. Only a few scientists ever set foot on Surtsey, all in heavy protective gear designed so that not a single plant seed or a piece of moss or fungi could adhere to it, to prevent accidental intrduction of a new lifeform on the island; it was mostly studied from the air, and the pilots of the planes carrying scientists were instructed not to land on the island, but ditch as far away as possible in case of potential emergency (none happened so far).
Alternative Title(s): Prime Directive.
Previous.
TVTROPES.
Tropes HQ.
About Us Contact Us Advertising: advertising@proper. io DMCA Notice.
TVTropes is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License.

Поиск по этому блогу

Mercado estrangeiro on-line Londrina

Alteração das opções de ações da cláusula de controle

Change of control clause stock options

Комментарии

Отправить комментарий

Популярные сообщения

Desvantagens do sistema de trocas comerciais

Divergencias estocastico forex