Re: Formal objection to ISSUE-2 resolution

>
> "R2RML mapping documents" -- a class of documents, Turtle-based
> "R2RML mapping graphs" -- a class of RDF graphs, could be serialized as
> anything
> "R2RML processor" -- a system whose input is an R2RML mapping document and
> an RDB, and whose output is a (possibly virtual) RDF dataset.
>
>
Richard - Personally I like the way you laid this out, in particular the
distinction between a mapping document and a mapping graph. However, my
concern is that we are making a fairly subtle distinction and by having this
in the recommendation: " It *MAY* accept R2RML mapping
graphs<http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/rdb2rdf/r2rml/#dfn-r2rml-mapping-graph>encoded
in other RDF syntaxes." we are opening ourselves up to the
interoperability issues that you identified previously. Namely that a person
could write a mapping doc in another representation and then have a
non-portable document.

For that reason I would prefer that we not say that implementations may
accept other syntaxes, but rather just have it be implied. The difference
between the two approaches is that if it is merely implied then when a
vendor does this they are explicitly above and beyond the recommendation
rather than being within the recommendation.

-David