Re: draft response to Nicholas J Humfrey

On 28 Feb 2010, at 04:25, Gregory Williams wrote:

> I've drafted a response to Nicholas Humfrey's question regarding the  
> service description vocabulary and possible support for describing  
> result formats. However, I'm not sure I've characterized the  
> argument appropriately.
> Original email:
> Draft response:
> I'm not sure something like the discussed saddle:resultFormat  
> property is appropriate in the SD doc for the same reasons that I've  
> pushed back on other features that reach outside of the SPARQL  
> specs. My previous email regarding the 1.1 Protocol draft touches on  
> this, but can anyone tell me if a conformant protocol implementation  
> has to support the SPARQL XML Results format and RDF/XML? I thought  
> these were the only formats the protocol discusses explicitly, but I  
> see the protocol document uses text/turtle in the single example of  
> a CONSTRUCT query, and (as detailed in my previous email) I'm not at  
> all sure after re-reading the protocol document if RDF/XML is  
> actually required.
> Given these issues, what do people think about supporting a term  
> like saddle:resultFormat? If there is a range of formats that a  
> conformant protocol implementation can support, should the service  
> description enumerate the supported formats? Also, does RDFa change  
> anything here as the (only?) other standard serialization format  
> (you could imagine an implementation emitting CONSTRUCT results as  
> RDFa)?

I think there's an argument for it. As has been noted it's not really  
necessary for machines, but may help humans, so no strong feelings.

- Steve

Steve Harris, Garlik Limited
2 Sheen Road, Richmond, TW9 1AE, UK
+44 20 8973 2465
Registered in England and Wales 535 7233 VAT # 849 0517 11
Registered office: Thames House, Portsmouth Road, Esher, Surrey, KT10  

Received on Friday, 5 March 2010 10:45:33 UTC