- From: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>
- Date: Wed, 07 Dec 2005 20:01:45 -0600
- To: Bert Bos <bert@w3.org>
- Cc: Eric Prud'hommeaux <eric@w3.org>, CSS specification-development list <www-style@w3.org>, RDF DAWG comments list <public-rdf-dawg-comments@w3.org>
On Wed, 2005-12-07 at 19:15 +0100, Bert Bos wrote: [...] > I am satisfied with the answer. OK... > I was confused by the fact that SPARQL-R is not RDF. Why would the > result of a query over RDF itself not be RDF, unless it was for easier > styling and display? First, SPARQL does provide a way to get back RDF, if the requester wants. You use CONSTRUCT ... instead of SELECT ... but some clients don't want to parse RDF; they just want a more rectangular result set. We looked at designs that met these rectangular constraints using the RDF syntax, but didn't prefer them to a dedicated XML format. > But I understand that the format is designed for > easier processing by software that displays the result in some other > form than as a document. That too, I suppose. -- Dan Connolly, W3C http://www.w3.org/People/Connolly/ D3C2 887B 0F92 6005 C541 0875 0F91 96DE 6E52 C29E
Received on Thursday, 8 December 2005 02:04:42 UTC