- From: Dan Brickley <danbri@danbri.org>
- Date: Thu, 10 Mar 2011 23:19:58 +0100
- To: Andy Seaborne <andy.seaborne@epimorphics.com>
- Cc: Richard Cyganiak <richard@cyganiak.de>, RDF Working Group WG <public-rdf-wg@w3.org>
On 10 March 2011 23:07, Andy Seaborne <andy.seaborne@epimorphics.com> wrote: > > > 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 Good to know. Do they have any plans/interests in addressing the JSON case where the query returns RDF rather than bindings? Dan
Received on Thursday, 10 March 2011 22:20:33 UTC