Re: Do we have consensus that we don't need more R2RML syntaxes? from David McNeil on 2011-06-21 (public-rdb2rdf-wg@w3.org from June 2011)

From: David McNeil <dmcneil@revelytix.com>
Date: Tue, 21 Jun 2011 13:06:59 -0500
To: Richard Cyganiak <richard@cyganiak.de>
Cc: W3C RDB2RDF <public-rdb2rdf-wg@w3.org>
Message-ID: <BANLkTikfPFA3EPmLfXqDTpST5frn=66ODw@mail.gmail.com>

I don't understand why we are addressing RDF serialization in this way.
Seems that we could say that R2RML mappings are represented as RDF. The
examples in the spec use Turtle, but other serialization formats are fine.
What am I missing?

-David

Received on Tuesday, 21 June 2011 18:07:35 UTC