Re: What is Oracle's objection to the use of Turtle as R2RML syntax?

On Wed, Dec 14, 2011 at 3:04 PM, Richard Cyganiak <richard@cyganiak.de>wrote:

> Hi Ashok,
>
> On 14 Dec 2011, at 18:55, ashok malhotra wrote:
> > Can you send the complete para or couple of sentences that you would
> like agreement on?
>
> Here are some background definitions (these are undisputed):
>
>
> §1 An R2RML processor is a system that, given an R2RML mapping and an
> input database, provides access to the output dataset.
>
> §2 An RDF graph that represents an R2RML mapping is called an R2RML
> mapping graph.
>
>
> I would like agreement on the following text:
>
>
> §3 An R2RML mapping document is any document written in the Turtle
> [TURTLE] RDF syntax that encodes an R2RML mapping graph.
>

How about:

[[
Turtle [TURTLE] is the single normative syntax for an R2RML mapping
document that encodes an R2RML mapping graph
]]


I liked the phrase "single normative syntax"


> §4 A conforming R2RML processor MUST accept R2RML mapping documents in
> Turtle syntax. It MAY accept R2RML mapping graphs encoded in other RDF
> syntaxes.
>
>
>
+1


> As a compromise, I could live with dropping §4, as long as §3 remains
> unchanged. Implementers of R2RML processors could then claim R2RML
> conformance regardless of the syntaxes they actually support. Producers of
> R2RML mappings who want to claim conformance would still have to use Turtle.
>
> Best,
> Richard
>
>
>
> > All the best, Ashok
> >
> > On 12/14/2011 10:39 AM, Richard Cyganiak wrote:
> >> Are you ok with a phrasing that says that R2RML processors MAY support
> other syntaxes? (Saying SHOULD seems difficult because then you kind of
> want to say which ones should be supported; and that's a tough call.)
> >>
> >
>
>
>