Re: Status of the R2RML document and going last call


Thanks for that. I agree with the status analysis and hope that the WG  
also is fine with it.

Dr. Michael Hausenblas, Research Fellow
LiDRC - Linked Data Research Centre
DERI - Digital Enterprise Research Institute
NUIG - National University of Ireland, Galway
Ireland, Europe
Tel. +353 91 495730

On 2 Aug 2011, at 18:26, Richard Cyganiak wrote:

> Hi David,
> Since this came up in the call.
> We have 12 open issues against the R2RML spec.
> Personally I would consider four of them blockers for last call.  
> Three are part of one big cluster related to type conversions  
> between SQL and RDF:
> This one is about the mapping tables:
> All the rest is either editorial, or polishing the language; if  
> running out of time, we can postpone them:
> Editorial issues
> SQL terminology in  
> “mapping document”  
> term
> Introducing Turtle
> R2RML polishing and syntactic sugar
> Simpler constant  
> term maps
> Nested P-O maps
> Default termType  
> for templates
> triples maps w/  
> single P-O map
> logical table  
> syntactic sugar
> Furthermore, there are another six issues that are pending review.
> In summary, I feel that with four weeks left, R2RML is well on track.
> Of course the most important thing is to get the blockers fixed. But  
> I assume that there will be some time left to look at a few non- 
> essential “postponable” issues. One thing that would be useful here  
> is some quick commentary on the editorial and polishing (and already  
> postponed) issues. Can you rank them by importance? Should we  
> consider any of the already postponed issues if there's time left  
> before LC?
> Best,
> Richard

Received on Tuesday, 2 August 2011 18:20:59 UTC