W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-rdf-dawg@w3.org > April to June 2005

Re: output-xslt good enough for sort objective?

From: Bijan Parsia <bparsia@isr.umd.edu>
Date: Sat, 16 Apr 2005 12:22:29 -0400
Message-Id: <BA9779C6-AE93-11D9-A697-0003936A0B26@isr.umd.edu>
Cc: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>, "Seaborne, Andy" <andy.seaborne@hp.com>, RDF Data Access Working Group <public-rdf-dawg@w3.org>
To: kendall@monkeyfist.com

On Apr 16, 2005, at 10:24 AM, Kendall Clark wrote:

> On Thu, Apr 14, 2005 at 08:28:27PM +0100, Seaborne, Andy wrote:
>> result sets included.  This is why I don't think DISTINCT, LIMIT and 
>> have a place in the protocol - they happen before serilization.
> FWIW, in the latest drafts (of spec, WSDL and schema files), these are
> not in the protocol. Just FYI. (And I have no plans to add them back.)

Sorry to be responding to the wrong message but I don't understadn 
Andy's argument. Conneg (in general) can happen before serialization 
(and may have to :)), but seem perfectly part of the protocol. As long 
as DISTINCT, LIMIT, and SORT come in, conceptual, "before" they have to 
be applied, it seems fine.

Oh. hmm. I guess, conceptually, the output-xslt comes after 
serialization. but does it have to implementationally? I mean, ok, 
initiate, perform query, serialize, sort could be nasty 
implementationally, but as long as you *know* what's happening in time 
to actually *do* initiate, perform, sort, serialize...isn't that ok?

Sorry not to dig back.

Received on Saturday, 16 April 2005 16:22:32 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 7 January 2015 15:00:47 UTC