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

Re: Formal objection to ISSUE-2 resolution

From: Richard Cyganiak <richard@cyganiak.de>
Date: Wed, 29 Jun 2011 20:39:17 +0100
Cc: RDB2RDF WG <public-rdb2rdf-wg@w3.org>
Message-Id: <6D2375EA-044B-47C5-A744-AF47E869A06C@cyganiak.de>
To: David McNeil <dmcneil@revelytix.com>
On 29 Jun 2011, at 18:11, David McNeil wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 29, 2011 at 12:06 PM, Richard Cyganiak <richard@cyganiak.de> wrote
> > How about stating explicitly that a conforming R2RML mapping document MUST be in Turtle syntax?
> > That makes it quite clear that a person who writes a mapping doc in another RDF syntax is not within the standard.
> > Would that address your concern? 
> Possibly/probably. I am curious what you see as the benefit of leaving in the phrase:  "It MAY accept R2RML mapping graphs encoded in other RDF syntaxes."?

The phrase makes explicit that accepting non-Turtle files doesn't make an R2RML processor non-conforming.

It doesn't really matter much.

Received on Wednesday, 29 June 2011 19:40:05 UTC

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