- From: Souripriya Das <souripriya.das@oracle.com>
- Date: Fri, 09 Dec 2011 12:32:59 -0500
- To: David McNeil <dmcneil@revelytix.com>
- CC: public-rdb2rdf-wg@w3.org
David, On 12/9/2011 7:50 AM, David McNeil wrote: > Souri - I share many of your sentiments. > > In the interest of producing a clear and focused R2RML 1.0 spec, what would you think of pushing forward: > > * without translation tables, which clearly we do not have technical consensus on > I am quite okay with not including translation tables (a feature that was proposed just before the Last Call), has strongly opposing viewpoints and no consensus, and is likely to require another Last Call. > * without the syntactic sugar, since the addition of these additional shortcut representations has resulted in a much less clear conceptual model and made it difficult to crisply express and reason about the R2RML model (even for us who have been on the working group for many months). After R2RML 1.0, as R2RML sees more real-world use and real-world implementations then it would be possible to more clearly see where shortcut notations are useful. > IMO any shortcut or syntactic sugar that causes slightest bit of confusion is not worth it. > Thanks. > -David Thanks, - Souri.
Received on Friday, 9 December 2011 17:35:09 UTC