- From: Richard Cyganiak <richard@cyganiak.de>
- Date: Wed, 13 Jul 2011 16:50:47 +0100
- To: David McNeil <dmcneil@revelytix.com>
- Cc: RDB2RDF WG <public-rdb2rdf-wg@w3.org>
On 13 Jul 2011, at 15:42, David McNeil wrote: >> A R2RML DATA VALIDATOR is a system that takes as its input an R2RML mapping, a base IRI, and a SQL connection to an input database, and checks for presence of data errors. When checking the input database, a data validator MUST report any DATA ERRORS that are raised in the process of generating the output dataset. >> > It seems to me that providing a DATA VALIDATOR would be optional for an R2RML implementor. Yes. An implementation can be a conforming R2RML processor without being a conforming R2RML data validator. A data validator would be the fourth kind of artefact defined in the spec with conformance criteria: http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/rdb2rdf/r2rml/#conformance > I think it would make sense to list all of the errors in one place and then state that those errors can occur when either the R2RML processor or the DATA VALIDATOR is running. That's reasonable. This could be done in the definition of data error. [[ PROPOSAL: Resolve ISSUE-47 by adopting Richard's proposal from http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdb2rdf-wg/2011Jul/0084.html with David's amendments from http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdb2rdf-wg/2011Jul/0097.html ]] Best, Richard
Received on Wednesday, 13 July 2011 15:51:30 UTC