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

Closing ISSUE-2 (was: Re: Formal objection to ISSUE-2 resolution)

From: Richard Cyganiak <richard@cyganiak.de>
Date: Wed, 29 Jun 2011 08:52:44 +0100
Cc: RDB2RDF WG <public-rdb2rdf-wg@w3.org>
Message-Id: <623250BC-5C47-4A55-BA11-A9EC32B27540@cyganiak.de>
To: David McNeil <dmcneil@revelytix.com>
So I assume that the resolution was indeed that Turtle MUST be supported.

I did some edits to the relevant section in the R2RML spec to reflect this discussion:



On 28 Jun 2011, at 20:11, David McNeil wrote:

> On Tue, Jun 28, 2011 at 1:44 PM, Richard Cyganiak <richard@cyganiak.de> wrote:
> Does adding this help?
> [[
> Conforming R2RML processors MAY accept R2RML mapping graphs encoded in other RDF syntaxes besides Turtle.
> ]]
> Richard - I think that would match what we discussed today on the working group telecon. Others please speak up if this is not the case.
> (Perhaps I am over-analyzing it but when I read that statement I imagine the following scenario: some implementation supports RDF-XML. They are within the spec. Does this mean that a user could create a mapping for this implementation, represent it with RDF-XML and still be within the spec? And once a user can do that don't all of your questions about interoperability come into play?.)
> -David 
Received on Wednesday, 29 June 2011 07:53:13 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:00:24 UTC