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

Re: what about RDF format?

From: Steve Harris <S.W.Harris@ecs.soton.ac.uk>
Date: Wed, 23 Mar 2005 10:48:03 +0000
To: "'RDF Data Access Working Group'" <public-rdf-dawg@w3.org>
Message-ID: <20050323104803.GD16051@login.ecs.soton.ac.uk>

On Wed, Mar 23, 2005 at 09:49:52 +0000, Andy Seaborne wrote:
> Yoshio,
> 
> For testing, we have been using
> 
> http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/DataAccess/tests/result-set.n3
> 
> because tests evaluate to a graph for SELECT and CONSTRUCT,
> then one way to check the results is to do a graph comparison.
> 
> THis vocabulary can't cope with sorted results.
> 
> This could form the basis of an RDF form.

It certainly makes sense that they be the same. The order problem has been
bothering me, as the testcase result format will need to be able to repesent
this if we get ORDER BY. I would prefer the binding results to not be in a
rdf list due to the difficulty of processing the graph, and sequences seem
to be unfashionable.

Are structures like:

        [] :list [ :position 1 ;
                   :value    <http://foo.example.com> ];
                 [ :position 2 ;
                   :value    <http://bar.example.com> ]

equally unpopular? Its my current preferred fix. The schema and results
files can be modified quite simply to represent order in this way, and its
easy to query.

The other thing that the result format cant represent is the order of the
columns, which is probably less of an issue, but rq23 does say something
about it, as the XML result format can distinguish.

- Steve
Received on Wednesday, 23 March 2005 10:48:40 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 26 March 2013 16:15:22 GMT