- From: Kendall Clark <kendall@clarkparsia.com>
- Date: Fri, 30 Oct 2009 14:09:22 -0400
- To: Lee Feigenbaum <lee@thefigtrees.net>
- Cc: Sandro Hawke <sandro@w3.org>, "Seaborne, Andy" <andy.seaborne@hp.com>, Bijan Parsia <bparsia@cs.man.ac.uk>, Birte Glimm <birte.glimm@comlab.ox.ac.uk>, SPARQL Working Group <public-rdf-dawg@w3.org>
On Fri, Oct 30, 2009 at 2:05 PM, Lee Feigenbaum <lee@thefigtrees.net> wrote: > Right. I think this is a good comparison. SPARQL Results in JSON was - IIRC > - something that was "sort of" implemented at the time but not in any > consistent way, then the Note prescribed a way that is now relatively > consistently used between implementations. I think there's a strong parallel > with what's being discussed here re: alternative syntaxes for BGPs. It's not clear to me why this is at all relevant, since this kind of criterion was not used to decide whether or when to do work in this WG previously. The protocol work is, as far as I can tell, non-trivial and being done from scratch. I'm okay with that, but I don't know why trading on OWL's well-established mapping to RDF is remotely similar. JSON's not even a W3C standard. >> It would be ideal, though, if we could avoid prejudging this as DOA, >> at least before it actually arrives. :> > > On the other hand, it's good for the folks who will put in the hard work to > produce this specification/note to have reasonable expectations for what may > become of it. No one could possibly argue with that. Thanks. Cheers, Kendall
Received on Friday, 30 October 2009 18:10:15 UTC