- From: Richard Cyganiak <richard@cyganiak.de>
- Date: Tue, 7 Sep 2010 08:04:51 +0100
- To: RDB2RDF WG <public-rdb2rdf-wg@w3.org>
We have three general proposals on the table for the R2RML syntax: XML http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/rdb2rdf/wiki/Example_of_SQL-based_RDB2RDF_Mapping:_Revision_1 custom syntax http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdb2rdf-wg/2010Aug/0055.html RDF/Turtle http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/rdb2rdf/wiki/R2RML_in_Turtle And we discuss to find out: Which one is the best? Or which one is unnecessary? But we don't need to answer those questions now. What we need to answer now is this: Which of the three is *least likely* to be eliminated? Which of these will cause the *least objections*? If we can identify that one, then we can proceed with writing an R2RML spec and test cases, using that syntax. The question wether to do the other syntaxes as well, can be deferred till later. Richard
Received on Tuesday, 7 September 2010 07:05:26 UTC