W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-rdf-wg@w3.org > March 2011

Re: [JSON] The case for a triple-based approach

From: Andy Seaborne <andy.seaborne@epimorphics.com>
Date: Thu, 10 Mar 2011 22:34:32 +0000
Message-ID: <4D7951F8.7060000@epimorphics.com>
To: Dan Brickley <danbri@danbri.org>
CC: Richard Cyganiak <richard@cyganiak.de>, RDF Working Group WG <public-rdf-wg@w3.org>


On 10/03/11 22:19, Dan Brickley wrote:
> 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?

No. I can very safely say the publishing editor has no plans to add RDF 
encoding.  His brief is to move the result set encoding to REC.

As has been said, content negotiation and a standard encoding (by 
RDF-WG) does the job.  It would have to be a complete serialization to 
ensure all graph can be returned as JSON - this is also true for 
PUT/POSTing to a graph store.

UC added to wiki.

	Andy

>
> Dan
>
Received on Thursday, 10 March 2011 22:35:09 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 17:04:04 UTC