Re: R2RML ontology bug? constant shortcut property definition not according to spec.

Looking at it again, the lack of formatting of the file seems indeed to suggest that the source is one of the others. But I really do not know, to be honest. 

Who was involved with this? We may have to dig into the archives to find out...

Ivan
---
Ivan Herman
Tel:+31 641044153
http://www.ivan-herman.net

(Written on mobile, sorry for brevity and misspellings...)



> On 24 Feb 2016, at 18:30, Richard Cyganiak <richard@cyganiak.de> wrote:
> 
> Ivan,
> 
>> On 24 Feb 2016, at 13:52, Ivan Herman <ivan@w3.org> wrote:
>>>>> I can confirm that the domain definitions for rr:subject, rr:predicate, rr:object and rr:graph in https://www.w3.org/ns/r2rml.ttl do not match (or even resemble) the specification.
> …
>>> Is it still known how the document was produced? There are HTML+RDFa, Turtle and RDF/XML variants (and possibly others?). Which one is the master copy? What toolchain was used to produce the others?
>> 
>> I am not sure, but I suspect the HTML+RDFa is the master. I usually generate all the other variants before pushing them up, via CVS, to the server
> 
> The HTML+RDFa looks auto-generated to me. I may be wrong.
> 
> Richard