- From: Richard Cyganiak <richard@cyganiak.de>
- Date: Wed, 29 Jun 2011 18:06:17 +0100
- To: David McNeil <dmcneil@revelytix.com>
- Cc: RDB2RDF WG <public-rdb2rdf-wg@w3.org>
How about stating explicitly that a conforming R2RML mapping document MUST be in Turtle syntax? That makes it quite clear that a person who writes a mapping doc in another RDF syntax is not within the standard. Would that address your concern? Richard On 29 Jun 2011, at 17:28, David McNeil wrote: > > > "R2RML mapping documents" -- a class of documents, Turtle-based > "R2RML mapping graphs" -- a class of RDF graphs, could be serialized as anything > "R2RML processor" -- a system whose input is an R2RML mapping document and an RDB, and whose output is a (possibly virtual) RDF dataset. > > > Richard - Personally I like the way you laid this out, in particular the distinction between a mapping document and a mapping graph. However, my concern is that we are making a fairly subtle distinction and by having this in the recommendation: " It MAY accept R2RML mapping graphs encoded in other RDF syntaxes." we are opening ourselves up to the interoperability issues that you identified previously. Namely that a person could write a mapping doc in another representation and then have a non-portable document. > > For that reason I would prefer that we not say that implementations may accept other syntaxes, but rather just have it be implied. The difference between the two approaches is that if it is merely implied then when a vendor does this they are explicitly above and beyond the recommendation rather than being within the recommendation. > > -David
Received on Wednesday, 29 June 2011 17:06:46 UTC