- From: Dave Beckett <dave.beckett@bristol.ac.uk>
- Date: Fri, 26 Nov 2004 15:45:58 +0000
- To: "RDF Data Access Working Group" <public-rdf-dawg@w3.org>
- Message-ID: <20041126154558.331dac89.dave.beckett@bristol.ac.uk>
I've updated the result formats I did 2004-09-28 described in http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-dawg/2004JulSep/0556.html to add a <variables> header describing the variable names as well as a form for returning blank nodes. In addition to those changes I wrote XQuery scripts for reading the two XML result formats and generating HTML tables with the bindings. This was pretty straightforward for both formats and I don't see that this gives a strong indication of a the choice between the two formats - schemaless or with schema. I still prefer the <foo>bar</foo> form as easier on the eyes than <var name="foo">bar</foo>. It's un-necessarily larger. Depends on how important schema validation is, I guess. So, attached to this message are the files: SPARQL query example.rq over Turtle data file data.n3 giving results formats: 1) XML file result1.xml and XQuery script result1-to-html.xq 2) XML file result2.xml and XQuery script result2-to-html.xq along with RelaxNG schemas result2.rnc, result2.rng and WXS schema result2.xsd Dave
Attachments
- text/plain attachment: data.n3
- text/plain attachment: example.rq
- text/plain attachment: result1-to-html.xq
- text/xml attachment: result1.xml
- text/plain attachment: result2-to-html.xq
- text/plain attachment: result2.rnc
- text/xml attachment: result2.rng
- text/xml attachment: result2.xml
- text/xml attachment: result2.xsd
Received on Friday, 26 November 2004 15:47:53 UTC