Re: Comment on SPARQL 1.1 CSV Results

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.

	Andy

On 03/02/12 23:17, Robert Vesse wrote:
> Hi All
>
> There is a problem with this document in that it does not state how and
> if the serialization should handle empty strings.
>
> The spec states that terms are serialized as if the STR() function had
> been applied and that there should be no distinguishing syntax for term
> type, thus the serialization should only surround a literal in quotes
> when that literal contains characters that cannot be serialized bare in CSV.
>
> Also the spec states that an unbound term is serialized as an empty field
>
> What this means is that the spec requires you to serialize an empty
> string in the same way you serialize an unbound term. Thus if you were
> to parse the serialization you would have to assume that it was an
> unbound term.
>
> I am aware that the CSV serialization is intentionally lossy by design
> so I'd like to suggest that the working group do one of the following:
>
> 1 - Have the document state that this case (empty string vs unbound
> term) is a known ambiguity in the serialization
> 2 - Require an empty string to be serialized as ""
>
> Option 2 would be my preference
>
> Regards,
>
> Rob Vesse
>>
>

Received on Sunday, 5 February 2012 19:52:03 UTC