- From: Richard Cyganiak <richard@cyganiak.de>
- Date: Wed, 29 Jun 2011 20:39:17 +0100
- To: David McNeil <dmcneil@revelytix.com>
- Cc: RDB2RDF WG <public-rdb2rdf-wg@w3.org>
On 29 Jun 2011, at 18:11, David McNeil wrote: > On Wed, Jun 29, 2011 at 12:06 PM, Richard Cyganiak <richard@cyganiak.de> wrote > > 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? > > Possibly/probably. I am curious what you see as the benefit of leaving in the phrase: "It MAY accept R2RML mapping graphs encoded in other RDF syntaxes."? The phrase makes explicit that accepting non-Turtle files doesn't make an R2RML processor non-conforming. It doesn't really matter much. Best, Richard
Received on Wednesday, 29 June 2011 19:40:05 UTC