RE: Unescaped XML in the SPARQL XML Result Format and Tuesday's agenda

I vote in favor of accepting.
Orri



 

-----Original Message-----
From: public-rdf-dawg-request@w3.org [mailto:public-rdf-dawg-request@w3.org]
On Behalf Of Ivan Mikhailov
Sent: Saturday, September 22, 2007 7:57 AM
To: Lee Feigenbaum
Cc: 'RDF Data Access Working Group'
Subject: Re: Unescaped XML in the SPARQL XML Result Format and Tuesday's
agenda


Hi everyone,

I vote for support of unescaped XML texts in the ..Results XML...
because it could be convenient for XSLT and similar tools that may be used
to transform result sets of different formats into each other. It is also
definitely more readable. It also resembles RDF/XML decision.

There should be an attribute that will indicate the difference between a
string and an XML entity that consists of a string. I'm in doubt whether we
should support generic entities there or just XML trees, so  probably we
should repeat RDF/XML decision.

I understand that unescaped XML texts may add problems for some lightweight
parsers of the format but these problems are minor and not common for all
implementations whereas convenient report format is a worth thing for
everybody.

I also understand that this will 'relax' XML Schema of the document but I
don't care :)

Best Regards,
Ivan Mikhailov.

On Sat, 2007-09-22 at 00:58 -0400, Lee Feigenbaum wrote:
> Hi everyone,
> 
> Eric is at risk for Tuesday; Orri and Ivan M can't make it, and I have 
> schedule-crunch. We're still doing well towards a decision to move to 
> PR, but I think we might shorten up this Tuesday's teleconf and push 
> the meat of our work to a week from Tuesday.
> 
> We do have one issue that we need to tackle ASAP:
> 
> On August 2, we received a comment from Stu Baurmann:
> 
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-dawg-comments/2007Aug/0
> 005.html
> 
> The message brings up the possibility of including unescaped XML 
> literal values in the SPARQL Query Results XML Format. Although 
> Richard Newman responded with some technical concerns about the 
> suggestion, the Working Group never responded. We owe Stu a response 
> before publishing a CR version of the XML results format.
> 
> I'd like to know if there is anyone on the working group who would 
> like to consider this suggestion and propose a design for it. I know 
> that Andy had some technical concerns about it and there are also, of 
> course, schedule concerns, but in the interest of due diligence I 
> wanted to give working group members who might support this comment a
chance to speak up.
> 
> So please register your support or active lack of support on the 
> mailing list if you can, and we'll attempt to dispatch of the comment 
> on Tuesday's teleconference.
> 
> For Tuesday, I'm picturing taking up this issue and then going over 
> where we stand in terms of advancing all three of our specifications 
> to PR, and seeing who has what actions on the critical path between 
> here and there. I'm hoping to keep the call to 30 minutes.
> 
> The flip side is that I'm expecting a somewhat lengthy call the week 
> after -- probably on the order of 90 minutes. Please let us know as 
> soon sa you can if you cannot make our call on Oct 2.
> 
> Lee
> 





--
No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition. 
Version: 7.5.488 / Virus Database: 269.13.30/1025 - Release Date: 9/23/2007
1:53 PM

Received on Monday, 24 September 2007 14:51:44 UTC