W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-rdb2rdf-comments@w3.org > October 2011

Editorial comments on R2RML

From: Ivan Herman <ivan@w3.org>
Date: Tue, 4 Oct 2011 16:54:28 +0200
Cc: public-rdb2rdf-comments@w3.org
Message-Id: <456DDB15-00F2-4D5C-AD21-1541569BFD55@w3.org>
To: Richard Cyganiak <richard@cyganiak.de>, Souripriya Das <Souripriya.Das@oracle.com>, Seema Sundara <seema.sundara@oracle.com>
None of these are major:

Section 7.3

The example refers to the IRI-safe template value using the following:

[] rr:subjectMap [ rr:template "http://data.example.com/site/{LOC}" ].

the IRI-safe version kicks in only if the term is declared to be an IRI. I know that this is defined, later, to be the default case for subject map using a template but it may be worth making this clear in the text (or simply add the extra rr:termType to the example.)

Section 7.6, first sentence

langauge -> language

Section 9.1 
(I am not sure the remark should go to this section, though)

I would expect that if I have:

[] rr:subjectMap [ rr:termType rr:BlankNode ] ;

in a triple map, what this means is that each row has a newly generated blank node as a subject. I wonder whether it is worth making this fact explicit in the document, it may not be entirely obvious.


The previous version of the document had a number of examples that were very helpful. It is a pity to throw them away. Either we should plan for a separate primer document (but I am not sure we will have the energy for that) or we should put those back into the spec document as an (obviously informal) appendix.



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 Tuesday, 4 October 2011 14:53:35 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 19:45:16 UTC