- From: Souripriya Das <souripriya.das@oracle.com>
- Date: Wed, 10 Aug 2011 16:00:26 -0400
- To: public-rdb2rdf-wg@w3.org
In our minds, the RDF classes, properties, resources, and literals we have introduced (to capture our SQL-based mapping scheme) are central. The serialization syntax for expressing the mapping could be any of the several possibilities: N-Triple, RDF/XML (recommendation), Turtle (first WD), etc. So, serialization syntax to use is just a matter of choosing one of several choices. The benefit of Independence or modular organization is that it allows combining things (even in future) simply by plugging in and without replications. For example, R2RML vocabulary + <XYZ> serialization syntax: where <XYZ> in ..... We can still teach using the syntax we prefer, say Turtle, and use that as an exchange format. However, if an implementation can consume only N-Triple, an R2RML mapping specified in Turtle may first have to be translated (using say Raptor [1]) into N-Triples format. So it appears that such an implementation would then be considered non-conformant because it does not directly consume R2RML mapping(s) presented in Turtle format. But, for all practical purposes, this implementation is perfectly usable with R2RML vocabulary. Hence the concern about the wording: "A R2RML processor MUST accept Turtle but MAY accept any RDF serialization (RDF/XML, NTriple, RDFa, etc.)." Thanks, - Souri. [1] http://librdf.org/raptor/rapper.html
Received on Wednesday, 10 August 2011 20:01:12 UTC