W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-rdb2rdf-wg@w3.org > June 2012

Re: Are empty R2RML mappings valid?

From: Juan Sequeda <juanfederico@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 20 Jun 2012 12:37:41 +0200
Message-ID: <CAMVTWDx6Daa+Na8xOG84ujrF0O8UOSDEYSDcUE444vD616ebow@mail.gmail.com>
To: Richard Cyganiak <richard@cyganiak.de>
Cc: Boris Villazón-Terrazas <bvillazon@fi.upm.es>, W3C RDB2RDF <public-rdb2rdf-wg@w3.org>
+1


On Wed, Jun 20, 2012 at 12:32 PM, Richard Cyganiak <richard@cyganiak.de>wrote:

> On 20 Jun 2012, at 09:29, Michael Hausenblas wrote:
> >> There was a resolution about this yesterday?
> >
> > We did not discuss this but as there were no objections, consider it
> resolved and please go ahead with it as pointed out below.
>
> +1 to keeping the spec as is (require one or more rr:TriplesMap instances)
> and remove the test case.
>
> Best,
> Richard
>
>
> >
> > Cheers,
> >          Michael
> >
> > --
> > Dr. Michael Hausenblas, Research Fellow
> > DERI - Digital Enterprise Research Institute
> > NUIG - National University of Ireland, Galway
> > Ireland, Europe
> > Tel.: +353 91 495730
> > WebID: http://sw-app.org/mic.xhtml#i
> >
> > On 20 Jun 2012, at 09:22, Boris Villazon-Terrazas wrote:
> >
> >> hi all
> >>
> >> There was a resolution about this yesterday?
> >>
> >> Boris
> >>
> >> On Jun 18, 2012, at 1:45 AM, ashok malhotra wrote:
> >>
> >>>
> >>> On 6/17/2012 2:56 PM, Boris Villazon-Terrazas wrote:
> >>>> Regarding the empty R2RML TC, it is not compliant with the latest
> version of the spec. I can remove that TC if everyone's agree.
> >>> Yes, I think that's best.  Anyone disagree?
> >>>
> >>> Ashok
> >>>
> >>
> >>
> >
> >
>
>
>
Received on Wednesday, 20 June 2012 10:38:30 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Wednesday, 20 June 2012 10:38:30 GMT