W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-rdf-dawg@w3.org > January to March 2010

draft response to Nicholas J Humfrey

From: Gregory Williams <greg@evilfunhouse.com>
Date: Sat, 27 Feb 2010 23:25:48 -0500
Message-Id: <418FD6EA-DF9D-4A93-BB6C-4945093174DA@evilfunhouse.com>
To: SPARQL Working Group WG <public-rdf-dawg@w3.org>
I've drafted a response to Nicholas Humfrey's question regarding the service description vocabulary and possible support for describing result formats. However, I'm not sure I've characterized the argument appropriately.

Original email:
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-dawg-comments/2010Feb/0016.html

Draft response:
http://www.w3.org/2009/sparql/wiki/CommentResponse:NH-1

I'm not sure something like the discussed saddle:resultFormat property is appropriate in the SD doc for the same reasons that I've pushed back on other features that reach outside of the SPARQL specs. My previous email regarding the 1.1 Protocol draft touches on this, but can anyone tell me if a conformant protocol implementation has to support the SPARQL XML Results format and RDF/XML? I thought these were the only formats the protocol discusses explicitly, but I see the protocol document uses text/turtle in the single example of a CONSTRUCT query, and (as detailed in my previous email) I'm not at all sure after re-reading the protocol document if RDF/XML is actually required.

Given these issues, what do people think about supporting a term like saddle:resultFormat? If there is a range of formats that a conformant protocol implementation can support, should the service description enumerate the supported formats? Also, does RDFa change anything here as the (only?) other standard serialization format (you could imagine an implementation emitting CONSTRUCT results as RDFa)?

thanks,
.greg
Received on Sunday, 28 February 2010 04:26:17 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 26 March 2013 16:15:41 GMT