Re: tableName syntactic sugar (ISSUE-75)

On 10 Dec 2011, at 13:58, David McNeil wrote:
> [
> PROPOSAL: Resolve ISSUE-75 by removing the tableName syntactic sugar and simplifying the R2RML schema documentation and property table to reflect this.
> ]

I'm ok with this. It does nothing except saving like 20 characters per triples map; not enough to be worth a fight.

Editorially, this would mean removing the second clause on the first bullet point here:

This requires no change to the R2RML schema documentation or property table. (The syntactic sugar works by making the *same* single resource *both* a “triples map” *and* a “base table or view”, therefore the domains and ranges are unaffected.)

It will require a review of all examples in the spec, and of the test cases.


> -David
> [1] -

Received on Monday, 12 December 2011 17:54:42 UTC