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

Re: Issue with the result set format

From: Seaborne, Andy <andy.seaborne@hp.com>
Date: Fri, 26 Nov 2004 17:09:28 +0000
Message-ID: <41A76348.4080508@hp.com>
To: Kendall Clark <kendall@monkeyfist.com>
CC: Dave Beckett <dave.beckett@bristol.ac.uk>, RDF Data Access Working Group <public-rdf-dawg@w3.org>



Kendall Clark wrote:
> 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?

This is RDF :-) it may not always be a URI.  Only a property has that feature. 
Anything else would imply some higher level constraint, including not a bNode.

> 
> 
>>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.

Could you say more as to why it is overrated?

In making our decision, we should understand the pros and cons of each format. 
Schema validation is something people do so that is a reason for form 2.  There 
needs to be a counter argument for format 1 where it is, by design, not XML 
Schema-able.  (The same debate has been had about RDF/XML.)

	Andy


> 
> Anyway, I vastly prefer form1 to form2.
> 
> Kendall Clark
Received on Friday, 26 November 2004 17:10:12 GMT

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