Re: What is Oracle's objection to the use of Turtle as R2RML syntax?

Instead of the following definition of the mapping document:

[[
An R2RML mapping document is any document written in the Turtle [TURTLE] RDF syntax that encodes an R2RML mapping graph.
]]

we propose the following:

[[
An R2RML mapping document is any document that encodes an R2RML mapping graph and
is written in any RDF syntax that is a W3C Recommendation and can be converted to Turtle [2].
]]

Thanks,
- Souri/Seema.

[2] http://www.w3.org/TR/turtle/

On 12/6/2011 11:12 AM, Richard Cyganiak wrote:
> Souri, Ashok,
>
> We have a long-standing open issue regarding Oracle's objection to the use of Turtle as the normative syntax for R2RML mapping documents:
>
>     ISSUE-57: r2rml-document-syntax
>     http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/rdb2rdf/track/issues/57
>
> Making progress on this issue requires action from you.
>
> I proposed a compromise earlier, and it has not yet received a response that addresses its contents:
>
>     http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdb2rdf-wg/2011Aug/0106.html
>
> If the compromise isn't acceptable to Oracle, then I'd like to see a concrete explanation of the reason for the objection.
>
> What pain does the current design cause for end users?
> What pain does it cause for mapping authors?
> What pain does it cause for implementers?
> What pain does it cause for the editors and the WG?
>
> The only concrete reason given for the objection was in [1] and it is addressed in the compromise proposal.
>
> The pain that would be caused by Oracle's change proposal is stated here:
>
>     http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdb2rdf-wg/2011Jun/0165.html
>
> Thanks,
> Richard
>
>
> [1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdb2rdf-wg/2011Aug/0102.html

Received on Wednesday, 7 December 2011 18:09:29 UTC