Re: Updated SPARQL Query Results XML Format draft

Steve Harris wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 14, 2005 at 01:25:36PM +0100, Andy Seaborne wrote:
>>>>The next complexity level would be to number the variable declarations in 
>>>>the header indicating the order of the variables but that does not make 
>>>>sense for function ordering.  So, just an indication in the <results> 
>>>>element seems fine, if anything at all.
>>>Why optional? order="false" seems pretty reasonable, and optional
>>>things just make processing harder.
>>Simplest would be to put in nothing - currently, ARQ preserves ordering 
>>when reading regardless, preserves ordering when writing regardless and 
>>does not indictae it in the XML produced.  It's streamed (well, nearly so - 
>>I need to switch to StAX from SAX.  Or have a callback API (no!).  Details, 
>>details) and that is important for XML result set usage IMHO.
>>If it (order="") is mandatory, we also need a "don't know" value.
> I dont understadn why you would ommit it, having something like that be
> optional makes it pretty useless, if clients cant depend on it, why would
> they support it?
> - Steve

Omission would be when the result set is not known to be ordered. 
ordered="true" means it is positively declared to be ordered.

As the client asked the query, I'd expect it to know anyway which is why I can't 
think of a case that needs to record the ordering in the result set (as an 
extension it can go at the end of <link>).

But like I said, XML is ordered, and ARQ streams (including end-to-end from 
Joseki) so ordering is retained regardless.


Received on Thursday, 14 July 2005 12:57:34 UTC