# Relationships and Resource Linkages in non-compound documents

**URL:** <https://discuss.jsonapi.org/t/relationships-and-resource-linkages-in-non-compound-documents/453>\
**Category:** Uncategorized\
**Created:** [May 2, 2016, 9:05pm UTC](https://discuss.jsonapi.org/t/relationships-and-resource-linkages-in-non-compound-documents/453 "2016-05-02T21:05:30Z")\
**Posts on this page:** 2\
**Page:** 1

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![emetsger](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/flex016/user_avatar/discuss.jsonapi.org/emetsger/32/279_2.png) [@emetsger](https://discuss.jsonapi.org/u/emetsger)\
**Post date:** [May 2, 2016, 9:05pm UTC](https://discuss.jsonapi.org/t/relationships-and-resource-linkages-in-non-compound-documents/453/1 "2016-05-02T21:05:30Z")

</div>

In a non-compound response document (i.e. no top-level `included` member), are resource linkages required for a relationships object?

For example, in a non-compound document, would this be a legal representation of a relationship object (note the absence of a resource linkage - the `data` member is missing):

> “relationships”: {  
> “files”: {  
> “links”: {  
> “related”: {  
> “href”: “[http://192.168.99.100:8000/v2/nodes/356n8/files/](http://192.168.99.100:8000/v2/nodes/356n8/files/)”,  
> “meta”: {}  
> }  
> }  
> }  
> }

My reading of the specification is that a resource linkage is only required in order to achieve “full linkage” in a compound document, otherwise they are optional. Is that a correct interpretation?

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![beauby](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/f475e1/32.png) [@beauby](https://discuss.jsonapi.org/u/beauby)\
**Post date:** [May 9, 2016, 3:18am UTC](https://discuss.jsonapi.org/t/relationships-and-resource-linkages-in-non-compound-documents/453/2 "2016-05-09T03:18:31Z")

</div>

The spec states

> A “relationship object” MUST contain at least one of the following: links […], data […], meta […]

Hence, it is indeed allowed to represent a relationship by just a link.