- From: Richard Newman <r.newman@reading.ac.uk>
- Date: Sat, 7 Oct 2006 15:16:13 -0700
- To: conor325 <conor@the325project.org>
- Cc: public-rdf-dawg-comments@w3.org
Sure, making it an array would be useful in that case (if you wanted
to just grab an array for one binding), but what in this case:
b foaf:name "Bobby"
c foaf:name "Bobby"
b foaf:name "Robert"
d foaf:name "Robert"
?
Also, the code to walk the results is actually less elegant in your
suggested scheme (pseudocode):
Original:
for binding in bindings do
print binding.name.value
versus
Yours:
for binding in bindings do
for each_name in name do // it's an array
print each_name.value
I actually prefer it the DAWG's way. Furthermore, both the XML and
JSON results serializations mirror the conceptual SPARQL 'result' (a
set of bindings), which gives a nice consistency.
-R
On 7 Oct 2006, at 2:20 PM, conor325 wrote:
>
> thx Lee.
>
> BTW, does the JSON format have to directly ape the XML form - so
> that if the XML form has multiple bindings then the JSON form must
> too? The extra binding - or many extra bindings if there are many
> multiple assertions - doesn't seem to serve the purpose of JSON
> which I think is to be trivial for a client to process?
>
Received on Saturday, 7 October 2006 22:16:35 UTC