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

Re: draft response to Nicholas J Humfrey

From: Gregory Williams <greg@evilfunhouse.com>
Date: Fri, 5 Mar 2010 18:03:57 -0500
Cc: SPARQL Working Group WG <public-rdf-dawg@w3.org>
Message-Id: <45DFB2D5-5358-4941-83AD-A63C21492C0F@evilfunhouse.com>
To: Steve Harris <steve.harris@garlik.com>
On Mar 5, 2010, at 5:45 AM, Steve Harris wrote:

> On 28 Feb 2010, at 04:25, Gregory Williams wrote:
> 
>> 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.

OK. I don't think I've heard anyone objecting to this, and it seems relatively simple to add to the vocab. Unless anyone speaks up against the idea, I'll try to draft some changes to add it to the vocab and SD document and update the response text to Nicholas.

.greg
Received on Friday, 5 March 2010 23:04:25 GMT

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