- From: Michael Hausenblas <michael.hausenblas@deri.org>
- Date: Sat, 27 Aug 2011 19:40:03 +0100
- To: ashok.malhotra@oracle.com
- Cc: public-rdb2rdf-wg@w3.org
> Thank you, Richard! That's great progress. +1 .. this is indeed very good news - now hoping to hear the same soon from the DM Editors? ;) Cheers, Michael -- 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 http://linkeddata.deri.ie/ http://sw-app.org/about.html On 27 Aug 2011, at 17:46, ashok malhotra wrote: > Thank you, Richard! That's great progress. > All the best, Ashok > > On 8/27/2011 9:10 AM, Richard Cyganiak wrote: >> Three R2RML issues are still OPEN: >> >> ISSUE-55: Nested predicate-object maps >> http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/rdb2rdf/track/issues/55 >> >> [[ >> PROPSOAL: Postpone ISSUE-55, this could be considered for R2RML 1.1 >> ]] >> >> >> ISSUE-57: R2RML doesn't allow R2RML documents in RDF/XML syntax >> http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/rdb2rdf/track/issues/57 >> >> As I said in another thread, there's text in the spec acknowledging >> the lack of consensus, and if Oracle is ok with the text then >> ISSUE-57 is not a blocker for Last Call. >> >> >> ISSUE-58: R2RML doesn't introduce Turtle well enough >> http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/rdb2rdf/track/issues/58 >> >> [[ >> PROPOSAL: Postpone ISSUE-58, it is an editorial/didactic issue and >> can be addressed after Last Call >> ]] >> >> >> Fourteen further issues are PENDING REVIEW. I am fine with closing >> them all, but we'll have to see what everyone thinks after >> reviewing them: >> http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/rdb2rdf/track/issues/pendingreview >> >> >> In my opinion, this makes the R2RML spec ready for Last Call. >> >> Thanks, >> Richard >
Received on Saturday, 27 August 2011 18:40:40 UTC