W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-rdf-dawg@w3.org > October to December 2004

Re: Issue with the result set format

From: Kendall Clark <kendall@monkeyfist.com>
Date: Fri, 26 Nov 2004 10:19:22 -0600
Message-ID: <20041126101922.A17506@monkeyfist.com>
To: andy.seaborne@hp.com, Dave Beckett <dave.beckett@bristol.ac.uk>
Cc: RDF Data Access Working Group <public-rdf-dawg@w3.org>

On Fri, Nov 26, 2004 at 11:52:48AM +0000, Seaborne, Andy muttered something about:

> >   <variables>
> >     <hpage/>
> >     <name/>
> >     <mbox/>
> >     <age/>
> >   </variables>
> 
> That would do just fine.

I like that. I wonder, in cases where we know hpage is a resource (and thus
its value is really a URI) whether <hpage uri=""/> adds anything? Is it just
the variable names we need here, nothing about their types?

> I have been asking around as to the preferences of result1 vs result2 forms. 
> Not a scientific survey but I haven't come across any support for form 1, and 
> very quickly people pick on the lack of schema-checking on it.

Schema support is overrated, IMO. Especially in such a simple format.

Anyway, I vastly prefer form1 to form2.

Kendall Clark
Received on Friday, 26 November 2004 16:19:44 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 26 March 2013 16:15:21 GMT