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

Re: draft response to Nicholas J Humfrey

From: Andy Seaborne <andy.seaborne@talis.com>
Date: Thu, 04 Mar 2010 19:39:45 +0000
Message-ID: <4B900C81.6040705@talis.com>
To: Gregory Williams <greg@evilfunhouse.com>
CC: SPARQL Working Group WG <public-rdf-dawg@w3.org>

On 28/02/2010 4:25 AM, Gregory Williams wrote:
> 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

Looks OK to me - I don't see that adding the information is that helpful 
band when HTTP content negotiation is the usual pattern here.

> 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?

They do, indirectly as the only standard serializations of a result set 
and a graph (RDFa noted).

> 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?

No strong feeling.

> 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)?

The MIME type for RDFa is XHTML (and soon HTML).  So it's not quite on 
the same footing; it can encode a graph but it's designed add 
information inside XHTML.


> thanks,
> .greg
> ______________________________________________________________________
> This email has been scanned by the MessageLabs Email Security System.
> For more information please visit http://www.messagelabs.com/email
> ______________________________________________________________________
Received on Thursday, 4 March 2010 19:40:07 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 7 January 2015 15:00:59 UTC