Re: Revised SKOS-based translation table proposal

Souri - I share many of your sentiments.

In the interest of producing a clear and focused R2RML 1.0 spec, what would
you think of pushing forward:

* without translation tables, which clearly we do not have technical
consensus on

* without the syntactic sugar, since the addition of these additional
shortcut representations has resulted in a much less clear conceptual model
and made it difficult to crisply express and reason about the R2RML model
(even for us who have been on the working group for many months). After
R2RML 1.0, as R2RML sees more real-world use and real-world implementations
then it would be possible to more clearly see where shortcut notations are
useful.

Thanks.
-David