- From: Seaborne, Andy <andy.seaborne@hp.com>
- Date: Thu, 14 Jul 2005 13:57:22 +0100
- To: Steve Harris <S.W.Harris@ecs.soton.ac.uk>
- CC: RDF Data Access Working Group <public-rdf-dawg@w3.org>
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. Andy
Received on Thursday, 14 July 2005 12:57:34 UTC