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

Result formats

From: Steve Harris <S.W.Harris@ecs.soton.ac.uk>
Date: Wed, 11 May 2005 10:14:25 +0100
To: DAWG public list <public-rdf-dawg@w3.org>
Message-ID: <20050511091425.GA2333@login.ecs.soton.ac.uk>

I just implemented the new (http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/DataAccess/rf1/
2005-05-03) result format, and I have some notes w.r.t. Design
Objective 4.7 http://www.w3.org/TR/rdf-dawg-uc/#d4.7

$ ls -Sl *
-rw-r--r--   1 swh  swh  226727 May 11 09:19 dawg-res-new.xml
-rw-r--r--   1 swh  swh  156310 May 11 09:19 dawg-res-old.xml
-rw-r--r--   1 swh  swh    2340 May 11 09:18 dawg-res-new.xml.gz
-rw-r--r--   1 swh  swh    1993 May 11 09:18 dawg-res-old.xml.gz

dawg-res-old-* are the results of an arbitrary query against some
arbitrary data using the result format working draft,
http://www.w3.org/TR/2004/WD-rdf-sparql-XMLres-20041221/ , dawg-res-new-*
is from my implementation of http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/DataAccess/rf1/

The XML is not optimal, I made no effort to compress is, and its pretty
printed, plus I wont hold up the data or queries are being representative
(its a bunch of FOAF files and a SELECT * WHERE { GRAPH ?g { ?a ?b ?c } }
query), but I think the numbers are interesting anway.

FWIW, I still prefer the new format, even though its more verbose.

- Steve
Received on Wednesday, 11 May 2005 09:14:39 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 26 March 2013 16:15:23 GMT