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

Re: Non-Turtle mapping documents (ISSUE-57)

From: Richard Cyganiak <richard@cyganiak.de>
Date: Wed, 10 Aug 2011 22:23:36 +0100
Cc: public-rdb2rdf-wg@w3.org
Message-Id: <3C87DE1A-EFC5-4847-A263-619E5A6B7AB3@cyganiak.de>
To: Souripriya Das <souripriya.das@oracle.com>
On 10 Aug 2011, at 21:00, Souripriya Das wrote:
> The benefit of Independence or modular organization is that it allows combining things

I do understand this advantage. But the advantage of increased interoperability that is brought by a standard syntax clearly outweighs the advantage of modularity, in my opinion.

> However, if an implementation can consume only N-Triple, an R2RML mapping specified in Turtle may first have to be translated (using say Raptor [1]) into N-Triples format. So it appears that such an implementation would then be considered non-conformant because it does not directly consume R2RML mapping(s) presented in Turtle format.


> But, for all practical purposes, this implementation is perfectly usable with R2RML vocabulary.

No it isn't. An implementation that only understands N-Triples cannot consume an R2RML example that is written in a book. It cannot consume an R2RML file that is emitted by a visual R2RML editor. I do not see why such an implementation should be allowed to claim compatibility with that book or that visual mapping editor.

You can bundle it with Raptor to make it conforming.

Received on Wednesday, 10 August 2011 21:24:07 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:00:26 UTC