- From: Howard Katz <howardk@fatdog.com>
- Date: Tue, 28 Sep 2004 14:01:07 -0700
- To: "Steve Harris" <S.W.Harris@ecs.soton.ac.uk>, <public-rdf-dawg@w3.org>
In terms of XQuery, I don't think there's a great difference between the two result formats. As in most things, it largely comes down to personal preference (in which case I lean slightly toward result format #1, mostly just because I like its concision of expression for ad hoc querying). Ultimately it's just that age-old question: what's better, attributes or elements? The angels-on-pinheads committee is still out on that one I think. >From another perspective, variation #1 is probably somewhat more efficient for most (all?) XQuery implementations. If you want to do a query for the presence or absence of a result variable named 'mbox' in format #1, you'd do an XPath-style kindtest: //mbox To do the same query in format #2, you'd need to check the string value of an attribute: //@name = "mbox" In either case, you'd get the element(s)/attribute(s) if it/they existed, otherwise null. You could also ask: exists( //mbox ) in which case you'd get a boolean true or false. Finally, Steve asks what the XML community thinks. Good idea: Why don't we ask them? I'd be quite happy to draft a note to the XML query languages mailing list asking exactly that. I can't speak authoritatively for XSLT people or even for XQuery folk; maybe there's something in one format or the other that members of the larger XML query community might have problems with? Why don't we ask? Howard > -----Original Message----- > From: public-rdf-dawg-request@w3.org > [mailto:public-rdf-dawg-request@w3.org]On Behalf Of Steve Harris > Sent: Tuesday, September 28, 2004 1:13 PM > To: public-rdf-dawg@w3.org > Subject: Re: draft XML query results format spec > > > > On Tue, Sep 28, 2004 at 06:04:46 +0100, Andy Seaborne wrote: > > I don't mind which style of design - I would go for whatever the XML > > community see as most appropriate for processing with XSLT and XQuery. > > +1 > > > 2/ Do XML literals go in as XML subtrees? > > I assume so - so using the same tags as the wrapper may arise and a > > poorly written XPath may (mis)match. Not sure we can remove all > > situations of this. Sometimes may actually want it. > > Worse case: a query result as XML literal within an XML result set. > > Example: querying a detailed server log file of queries and their > > results. > > I would expect XML Literals to be escaped, so they can be handled the same > way as other literal types, and to make processing easier in non-XSLT > applications. > > - Steve > >
Received on Tuesday, 28 September 2004 20:59:36 UTC