- From: Gregory Williams <greg@evilfunhouse.com>
- Date: Fri, 5 Mar 2010 18:03:57 -0500
- To: Steve Harris <steve.harris@garlik.com>
- Cc: SPARQL Working Group WG <public-rdf-dawg@w3.org>
On Mar 5, 2010, at 5:45 AM, Steve Harris wrote: > On 28 Feb 2010, at 04:25, Gregory Williams wrote: > >> 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. OK. I don't think I've heard anyone objecting to this, and it seems relatively simple to add to the vocab. Unless anyone speaks up against the idea, I'll try to draft some changes to add it to the vocab and SD document and update the response text to Nicholas. .greg
Received on Friday, 5 March 2010 23:04:25 UTC