- From: Richard Cyganiak <richard@cyganiak.de>
- Date: Thu, 10 Mar 2011 18:58:19 +0000
- To: Dan Brickley <danbri@danbri.org>
- Cc: RDF Working Group WG <public-rdf-wg@w3.org>
On 10 Mar 2011, at 15:19, Dan Brickley wrote: > Don't we already *almost* have that? Yes, *almost*. > http://www.w3.org/TR/rdf-sparql-json-res/ (WG Note not a REC, so far) > > This handles "SPARQL variable binding and boolean query results" but > not RDF graph results. (Perhaps those could be encoded by acting as if > variables ?s ?p ?o and ?g were requested?). This might well be one possible way of specifying a triple-based JSON serialization of RDF. It would still need to be written down in some spec. > Having SPARQL JSON results defined by two unrelated specs could be confusing! Yes, it's somewhat confusing, but as Ivan said, the SPARQL WG shouldn't specify new RDF graph serializations because that touches upon much broader issues than “just” querying RDF. Also note the situation with XML-based result formats: SELECT (SPARQL XML result format) and CONSTRUCT/DESCRIBE (RDF/XML) are defined in two unrelated specs. Best, Richard
Received on Thursday, 10 March 2011 18:58:56 UTC