- From: Lee Feigenbaum <feigenbl@us.ibm.com>
- Date: Wed, 14 Dec 2005 12:08:40 -0500
- To: RDF Data Access Working Group <public-rdf-dawg@w3.org>
Kendall Clark <kendall@monkeyfist.com> wrote on 12/14/2005 12:02:51 PM: > > On Dec 14, 2005, at 11:27 AM, Lee Feigenbaum wrote: > > > > > 'c' eliminates the indexed-based approach to parsing the results. At > > the very least, I feel that if the Working Group decides on option 'c' > > than the requirement that variable name order be preserved within > > the resultset should be removed. > > I don't think UMD would object to that. I've never thought that was > worth the pain anyway. > To reply to two points at once; you asked for clarification of in what way the collapsed option is not fully-functional. It is not fully functional in that it does not support position-based indexing as the LC design does. If that is not a desirable property, then I believe that the best approach is to eliminate this requirement from the results format (and then going with option 'c' is less objectionable). Lee
Received on Wednesday, 14 December 2005 17:09:37 UTC