- From: Andy Seaborne <andy.seaborne@epimorphics.com>
- Date: Thu, 10 Mar 2011 22:07:35 +0000
- To: Richard Cyganiak <richard@cyganiak.de>
- CC: Dan Brickley <danbri@danbri.org>, RDF Working Group WG <public-rdf-wg@w3.org>
On 10/03/11 18:58, Richard Cyganiak wrote: > 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. Right - and the proposed MIME type is application/sparql-results+json not application/rdf+json Andy
Received on Thursday, 10 March 2011 22:08:12 UTC