W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-rdb2rdf-wg@w3.org > June 2011

Formal objection to ISSUE-2 resolution

From: Richard Cyganiak <richard@cyganiak.de>
Date: Tue, 28 Jun 2011 19:04:27 +0100
Message-Id: <BBB09201-87FC-4B29-A461-BD8A222EDAE2@cyganiak.de>
To: RDB2RDF WG <public-rdb2rdf-wg@w3.org>
I was surprised to find in today's minutes [1] a resolution to change the design of R2RML, related to ISSUE-2 [2]:

[[
RESOLUTION: R2RML is defined in terms of an input RDF graph. For interoperability simplicity, implementations SHOULD accept at least Turtle input.
]]

I'm afraid I have to object to this and register a strong -1.

The consequence of this decision is that one can have two conforming R2RML implementations that do not interoperate.

Furthermore, one cannot write test cases that a conforming R2RML implementation MUST pass.

Furthermore, one cannot write a “Hello, World” R2RML document that works in every conforming R2RML implementation.

Furthermore, one cannot write a tutorial or book on R2RML with examples that are guaranteed to work in every conforming R2RML implementation.

Furthermore, one cannot create an R2RML-generating application (such as a visual mapping editor) that writes output that is guaranteed to work in every conforming R2RML implementation.

This is unacceptable and I formally object to this change and demand that the current design of R2RML remains unchanged in this regard.

Richard


[1] http://www.w3.org/2011/06/28-rdb2rdf-minutes.html
[2] http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/rdb2rdf/track/issues/2
Received on Tuesday, 28 June 2011 18:04:56 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 28 June 2011 18:04:58 GMT