W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-rdf-dawg@w3.org > January to March 2012

Re: Comment on SPARQL 1.1 CSV Results

From: Lee Feigenbaum <lee@thefigtrees.net>
Date: Sun, 05 Feb 2012 20:34:42 -0500
Message-ID: <4F2F2E32.8080904@thefigtrees.net>
To: Eric Prud'hommeaux <eric@w3.org>
CC: Gregory Williams <greg@evilfunhouse.com>, Andy Seaborne <andy.seaborne@epimorphics.com>, SPARQL Working Group <public-rdf-dawg@w3.org>
On 2/5/2012 7:46 PM, Eric Prud'hommeaux wrote:
> On Sun, Feb 5, 2012 at 18:57, Lee Feigenbaum<lee@thefigtrees.net>  wrote:
>> I agree with Greg.
>>
>> Given that the CSV format is purposefully simple and lossy, I think that
>> unbound variables and empty strings should both be empty strings in CSV,
>> which can be either ,, or ,"",
>
> I believe the use of existing libraries argument is more salient for
> parsers than for serializers (i.e. printf loops). What then is the
> harm in specifying the "" distinction, which only some parsers will
> distinguish?

What's the use case for distinguishing between them that isn't better 
addressed by the TSV lossless format?

Lee

>
>
>> Lee
>>
>>
>> On 2/5/2012 4:21 PM, Gregory Williams wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> On Feb 5, 2012, at 2:51 PM, Andy Seaborne wrote:
>>>
>>>> Rob,
>>>>
>>>> Thank you for catching that.  I've added text to the editor's working
>>>> draft, noting the fact and requiring the quoted empty string be used (your
>>>> option 2).  This text will be considered by the working group when it next
>>>> reviews the document for publication.
>>>>
>>>> I would be grateful if you would acknowledge that your comment has been
>>>> answered by sending a reply to this mailing list.
>>>
>>>
>>> Won't Rob's suggestion of requiring empty strings to be serialized as ""
>>> mean that implementations can't simply use a CSV library that decides when
>>> quoting is required? My reading of the CSV RFC suggests that an empty
>>> string, and "" are equivalent.
>>>
>>> Similarly, the document says that "if a variable is not bound, an empty
>>> field is used, (e.g. ,,)" but I would hope that a quoted empty field would
>>> also be acceptable (e.g. ,"",). Is that correct?
>>>
>>> thanks,
>>> .greg
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>
>
>
Received on Monday, 6 February 2012 01:35:20 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 26 March 2013 16:15:47 GMT