Re: Non-Turtle mapping documents (ISSUE-57)

> 1. Delete the following text:
>
> [[
> A conforming R2RML processor must accept R2RML mapping documents in  
> Turtle syntax. It may accept R2RML mapping graphs encoded in other  
> RDF syntaxes.
> ]]
>
> 2. In the following text, change “R2RML mapping” to “R2RML mapping  
> graph”:
>
> [[
> An R2RML processor is a system that, given an R2RML mapping and an  
> input database, provides access to the output dataset.
> ]]
>
> This would be acceptable to me as long as the definition of “R2RML  
> mapping document” remains unchanged:
>
> [[
> An R2RML mapping document is any document written in the Turtle  
> [TURTLE] RDF syntax that encodes an R2RML mapping graph.
> ]]


+1


Cheers,
	Michael
--
Dr. Michael Hausenblas, Research Fellow
LiDRC - Linked Data Research Centre
DERI - Digital Enterprise Research Institute
NUIG - National University of Ireland, Galway
Ireland, Europe
Tel. +353 91 495730
http://linkeddata.deri.ie/
http://sw-app.org/about.html

On 11 Aug 2011, at 00:36, Richard Cyganiak wrote:

> Souri,
>
> I mulled it over a bit more. A proposal below. Summary: require that  
> R2RML mapping *documents* are in Turtle, but don't say *anything*  
> about syntax for R2RML *processors*.
>
> In detail:
>
> 1. Delete the following text:
>
> [[
> A conforming R2RML processor must accept R2RML mapping documents in  
> Turtle syntax. It may accept R2RML mapping graphs encoded in other  
> RDF syntaxes.
> ]]
>
> 2. In the following text, change “R2RML mapping” to “R2RML mapping  
> graph”:
>
> [[
> An R2RML processor is a system that, given an R2RML mapping and an  
> input database, provides access to the output dataset.
> ]]
>
> This would be acceptable to me as long as the definition of “R2RML  
> mapping document” remains unchanged:
>
> [[
> An R2RML mapping document is any document written in the Turtle  
> [TURTLE] RDF syntax that encodes an R2RML mapping graph.
> ]]
>
> Rationale:
>
> Making the Turtle syntax mandatory for “R2RML mapping documents”  
> should be sufficient to ensure that the ecosystem (tutorials, books,  
> editors, etc) centers itself firmly around Turtle.
>
> For implementers of R2RML processors, it is then in their best  
> interest to support Turtle.
>
> Implementers who are unwilling to do so for whatever reason could  
> still claim conformance. That's a bit paradoxical, as users will  
> first have to convert a conforming R2RML mapping document to the  
> supported syntax using a third-party tool before they can actually  
> use it; but it might be a workable compromise.
>
> (Tangential side note: N-Triples is a subset of Turtle; so when you  
> convert a conforming R2RML document to N-Triples, it is actually  
> *still* a conforming R2RML document. Although not a very readable  
> one.)
>
> Best,
> Richard
>
>
> On 10 Aug 2011, at 22:23, Richard Cyganiak wrote:
>
>> On 10 Aug 2011, at 21:00, Souripriya Das wrote:
>>> The benefit of Independence or modular organization is that it  
>>> allows combining things
>>
>> I do understand this advantage. But the advantage of increased  
>> interoperability that is brought by a standard syntax clearly  
>> outweighs the advantage of modularity, in my opinion.
>>
>>> 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.
>>
>> Correct.
>>
>>> But, for all practical purposes, this implementation is perfectly  
>>> usable with R2RML vocabulary.
>>
>> No it isn't. An implementation that only understands N-Triples  
>> cannot consume an R2RML example that is written in a book. It  
>> cannot consume an R2RML file that is emitted by a visual R2RML  
>> editor. I do not see why such an implementation should be allowed  
>> to claim compatibility with that book or that visual mapping editor.
>>
>> You can bundle it with Raptor to make it conforming.
>>
>> Best,
>> Richard
>
>

Received on Thursday, 11 August 2011 07:40:35 UTC