Re: [JSON] The case for a triple-based approach

On 10/03/11 18:58, Richard Cyganiak wrote:
> On 10 Mar 2011, at 15:19, Dan Brickley wrote:
>> Don't we already *almost* have that?
>
> Yes, *almost*.
>
>> http://www.w3.org/TR/rdf-sparql-json-res/  (WG Note not a REC, so
>> far)
>>
>> This handles "SPARQL variable binding and boolean query results"
>> but not RDF graph results. (Perhaps those could be encoded by
>> acting as if variables ?s ?p ?o and ?g were requested?).
>
> This might well be one possible way of specifying a triple-based JSON
> serialization of RDF. It would still need to be written down in some
> spec.
>
>> Having SPARQL JSON results defined by two unrelated specs could be
>> confusing!
>
> Yes, it's somewhat confusing, but as Ivan said, the SPARQL WG
> shouldn't specify new RDF graph serializations because that touches
> upon much broader issues than “just” querying RDF. Also note the
> situation with XML-based result formats: SELECT (SPARQL XML result
> format) and CONSTRUCT/DESCRIBE (RDF/XML) are defined in two unrelated
> specs.

Right - and the proposed MIME type is
   application/sparql-results+json
not
   application/rdf+json

	Andy