- From: Andy Seaborne <andy.seaborne@epimorphics.com>
- Date: Sun, 07 Aug 2011 20:59:56 +0100
- To: public-rdf-dawg@w3.org
On 07/08/11 20:43, Axel Polleres wrote: > > On 7 Aug 2011, at 20:50, Gregory Williams wrote: > >> On Aug 7, 2011, at 2:21 PM, Axel Polleres wrote: >> >>> 1) I added (my understanding of) what CSV and TSV test cases should return in >>> >>> http://www.w3.org/2009/sparql/docs/tests/data-sparql11/csv-tsv-res/ >>> >>> the test cases are: >>> >>> http://www.w3.org/2009/sparql/docs/tests/data-sparql11/csv-tsv-res/manifest#csv01 >>> http://www.w3.org/2009/sparql/docs/tests/data-sparql11/csv-tsv-res/manifest#tsv01 >>> http://www.w3.org/2009/sparql/docs/tests/data-sparql11/csv-tsv-res/manifest#csv01 >>> http://www.w3.org/2009/sparql/docs/tests/data-sparql11/csv-tsv-res/manifest#tsv02 >>> >>> these haven't been produced automatically, so please check. >> >> All of these use the SELECT * form. If the variables happen to be projected in a different order than the one assumed in the csv/tsv result files, should the tests fail? > > Well, good point, I'd say! In http://www.w3.org/TR/rdf-sparql-XMLres/ it says: > > "The order of the variable names in the sequence is the order of the variable names given to the argument of the SELECT statement in the SPARQL query. If SELECT * is used, the order of the names is undefined." > > Likewise, for json, there's a sentence in http://www.w3.org/2009/sparql/docs/json-results/json-results-lc.html: > "The order of variable names should correspond to the variables in the SELECT clause of the query, unless the query is of the form SELECT * in which case order is not significant. > > However, I realize that there is no respective remark (I guess it should be the same for CVS and TSV) in > http://www.w3.org/2009/sparql/docs/csv-tsv-results/results-csv-tsv.html > > Can/shall we change that for this pub round still? Opinions? Too late - the final version of the FP doc has been cut and passed to W3C for publication. (TC 26 July 2011 - i have corrected editorial mistakes in processing for publication) I haven't heard anything back : what's the status of this? http://www.w3.org/2009/sparql/docs/csv-tsv-results/WD-csv-tsv-2011-08.html > >>> 2) this brought me to some ommission in the json-res test cases ... where I >> ... >>> (note that I alsoe renamed the output files from .srj to .json). >> >> Why? > > Hmmm, ouch - confused, I thought I remembered that someone mentioned that .json was the standard suffix for JSON files and this should be changed, but actually it the discussion was the other way around [1]..... aaaargh. Sorry& thanks, changed back to ".srj" . Note: this was never registered as far as I know. > > Should ".csv" and ".tsv" then remain as is, or o we want an own suffix there as well (such as e.g. ".src" and ".srt" ) That would need MIME type registration. They are much more plain and proper uses of CSV and TSV. JSON is using JSON to record something else (a result set). Andy > > Axel > > 1. http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-dawg/2011JanMar/0173.html >> >> thanks, >> .greg >> >> > >
Received on Sunday, 7 August 2011 20:00:27 UTC