This is another splinter issue from #1197 to discuss a few independent checklist questions. The result of this discussion can then be used to update the checklist in #1197. The items for this issue:

• Should we put restrictions on the kinds of graphs allowed or should we leave it to the server implementations? Resolution: Yes, only graphs that satisfy the full linkage requirement are allowed.
• Should we put minimum requirements of the kind of graphs a server must support?

My current thinking is:

• I'm fine saying that the server is allowed to support any graphs it wants (i.e., no restrictions). However, as I mentioned here, that probably means we have to create another exception to the full-linkage requirement to allow the case where there's a resource in included that's not connected to the primary resource or any other included resource (i.e., it's really just specifying a second, independent creation).

• I do think we should require, at a minimum, that implementations support graphs in which the only temporary resource identifier objects point from the primary data to sideposted resources. (That is, graphs where the included resources don't link to one another and are connected to the primary data.) A server that didn't support this simple case seems like it would be borderline useless.