- From: Ivan Herman <ivan@w3.org>
- Date: Wed, 1 Jun 2011 14:57:27 +0200
- To: David McNeil <dmcneil@revelytix.com>
- Cc: Richard Cyganiak <richard@cyganiak.de>, W3C RDB2RDF <public-rdb2rdf-wg@w3.org>
There is also an ugly administrative issue, actually. A standard (W3C or otherwise, actually) should refer to standards only. It is somewhere in the pubrules of W3C, too. Ie, while referring to an ISO standard is, of course, perfectly all right, referring to a company specific, to-be-changed and potentially-unstable document is not...:-( I know, this is a very administrative argument, so I put down my team contact hat before you hate me too much:-) Ivan On Jun 1, 2011, at 14:50 , David McNeil wrote: > > The thing is, implementers will know what to do anyways, it's just impossible for us to write it down normatively in the spec. We could add some handwaving text that explains the intuition of handling vendor-specific SQL in the appropriate way, but I don't see how that's any better than just saying, “We define R2RML for SQL 2008 Core, full stop. You use another dialect, it's up to you to figure out the details.” > > Can you think of some words that work better for you than the proposed ones? > > Richard - I will try and spend some time thinking about this. Thank you for the response. > > -David ---- Ivan Herman, W3C Semantic Web Activity Lead Home: http://www.w3.org/People/Ivan/ mobile: +31-641044153 PGP Key: http://www.ivan-herman.net/pgpkey.html FOAF: http://www.ivan-herman.net/foaf.rdf
Received on Wednesday, 1 June 2011 12:55:04 UTC