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

Re: draft response to Nicholas J Humfrey

From: Steve Harris <steve.harris@garlik.com>
Date: Fri, 5 Mar 2010 10:45:01 +0000
Cc: SPARQL Working Group WG <public-rdf-dawg@w3.org>
Message-Id: <D61B9547-BEE4-476C-82D3-3C734E287487@garlik.com>
To: Gregory Williams <greg@evilfunhouse.com>
On 28 Feb 2010, at 04:25, 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
>
> 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)?

I think there's an argument for it. As has been noted it's not really  
necessary for machines, but may help humans, so no strong feelings.

- Steve

-- 
Steve Harris, Garlik Limited
2 Sheen Road, Richmond, TW9 1AE, UK
+44 20 8973 2465  http://www.garlik.com/
Registered in England and Wales 535 7233 VAT # 849 0517 11
Registered office: Thames House, Portsmouth Road, Esher, Surrey, KT10  
9AD
Received on Friday, 5 March 2010 10:45:33 GMT

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