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

>> 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.

Well, it is - with "R2RML *vocabulary*" - as indicated above. 
But, not with "R2RML vocabulary PLUS Turtle syntax requirement".

>You can bundle it with Raptor to make it conforming.

Clearly we do not agree on these issues. We could go into long 
discussions, but given the current rush for meeting our self-imposed 
01-Sep-2011 deadline for LC, let us just note down Oracle's objection and 
proceed whichever way the rest of the WG wants to go.

- Souri.

Received on Wednesday, 10 August 2011 22:51:46 UTC