- From: Ivan Herman <ivan@w3.org>
- Date: Thu, 10 Mar 2011 18:10:27 +0100
- To: "nathan@webr3.org" <nathan@webr3.org>
- Cc: Richard Cyganiak <richard@cyganiak.de>, RDF Working Group WG <public-rdf-wg@w3.org>
On the construct/describe issue: these sparql operations return and rdf graph in whatever serialization that are available. It would not be appropriate for the sparql wg to define an rdf serialization. This is the job of this wg. Ivan ---- Ivan Herman Tel:+31 641044153 http://www.ivan-herman.net On 10 Mar 2011, at 17:16, Nathan <nathan@webr3.org> wrote: > Hi Richard, > > Just a quick comment.. > > Richard Cyganiak wrote: >> HOW WOULD IT BE USED >> The main motivation would be as a result format for CONSTRUCT and DESCRIBE queries against SPARQL stores. So, server-side implementors would be SPARQL store vendors. > > I have to say I'm getting a little confused, it appears that the two things you passionately want to see this WG to provide, is a turtle like format for dumping out RDF Datasets, and a JSON format for dumping out CONSTRUCT and DESCRIBE sparql results. > > Why here and not the SPARQL WG? > > Best, > > Nathan >
Received on Thursday, 10 March 2011 17:08:37 UTC