- From: Juan Sequeda <juanfederico@gmail.com>
- Date: Wed, 14 Dec 2011 09:07:59 -0500
- To: Souripriya Das <SOURIPRIYA.DAS@oracle.com>
- Cc: richard@cyganiak.de, public-rdb2rdf-wg@w3.org
- Message-ID: <CAMVTWDzrSq4Ct95X12WM1wM2MrMgd-G2pE4ZNu0HVH=encsXjQ@mail.gmail.com>
But it does now. I don't think that is an argument for not having a single normative R2RML syntax Juan Sequeda +1-575-SEQ-UEDA www.juansequeda.com On Wed, Dec 14, 2011 at 9:05 AM, Souripriya Das <SOURIPRIYA.DAS@oracle.com>wrote: > I was talking about OWL (10-Feb-2004: http://www.w3.org/TR/owl-features/), > which did not specify a syntax. -- Souri. > > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: juanfederico@gmail.com > To: richard@cyganiak.de > Cc: souripriya.das@oracle.com, kidehen@openlinksw.com, > public-rdb2rdf-wg@w3.org > Sent: Wednesday, December 14, 2011 8:44:35 AM GMT -05:00 US/Canada Eastern > Subject: Re: What is Oracle's objection to the use of Turtle as R2RML > syntax? > > > > On Wed, Dec 14, 2011 at 5:23 AM, Richard Cyganiak <richard@cyganiak.de>wrote: > >> Souri, >> >> On 13 Dec 2011, at 23:40, Souripriya Das wrote: >> > OWL too was called a language, "Web Ontology Language". But, it just >> defined a vocabulary. It did not define any syntax. >> >> OWL defines three new syntaxes: >> >> http://www.w3.org/TR/owl2-syntax/ >> http://www.w3.org/TR/owl2-xml-serialization/ >> http://www.w3.org/TR/owl2-manchester-syntax/ >> >> > One can use any RDF syntax (RDF/XML, N-Triple, ...) for OWL. >> >> [[ >> As noted above, any conformant OWL 2 tool MUST accept ontology documents >> using the RDF/XML serialization … A conformant OWL 2 tool MAY also accept >> ontology documents using other serializations, for example Turtle >> ]] >> http://www.w3.org/TR/owl2-conformance/#Tool_Conformance >> >> RDF/XML is the single normative OWL syntax. My desire is to have a single >> normative R2RML syntax (but it should be Turtle rather than the outdated >> and in many ways broken RDF/XML). >> > > Ok. I'm now convinced. If RDF/XML is the single normative OWL syntax, then > there should be a single normative R2RML syntax too... and RDF/XML is too > complicated for this. So you got my vote for Turtle to be the "single > normative R2RML syntax". > > However, other syntaxes *should* be supported by implementations. R2RML is > basically a vocabulary. Written in Turtle, it looks like a language, but > it's still a vocabulary. R2RML mappings are instantiations of this > vocabulary. So technically, I can import the R2RML vocabulary into an > ontology editor, and use the ontology editor to create the mappings. Does > this really work right now? I don't know. Will people actually do this? I > don't know. But it could. And all these tools support different syntaxes. > So if I were to create an R2RML mapping using an existing ontology editor > tool, export it as RDF/XML and send it to somebody else and they open it in > an R2RML specific tool.. everything should work. > > >> Best, >> Richard >> >> >> >> > >> > Thanks, >> > - Souri. >> > >> > ----- Original Message ----- >> > From: kidehen@openlinksw.com >> > To: public-rdb2rdf-wg@w3.org >> > Sent: Tuesday, December 13, 2011 5:01:24 PM GMT -05:00 US/Canada Eastern >> > Subject: Re: What is Oracle's objection to the use of Turtle as R2RML >> syntax? >> > >> > On 12/13/11 4:51 PM, Richard Cyganiak wrote: >> >> Hi Ashok, >> >> >> >> On 13 Dec 2011, at 21:11, ashok malhotra wrote: >> >>> At the Linked Data Workshop last week IBM showed some slides that >> used a RDF syntax called Trig. >> >>> So, I looked up Trig >> http://www.wiwiss.fu-berlin.de/suhl/bizer/TriG/Spec/ and found that you >> were >> >>> one of the authors. So, Trig might be an alternate syntax for the >> mapping language, no? >> >>> Folks seemed to like it. It is not a standard but may become one. >> >> I like that example! R2RML already allows the use of TriG syntax, no >> change required. TriG is a superset of Turtle. If you serialize an R2RML >> mapping graph as TriG, you get a Turtle file. >> >> >> >>> It is also possible that >> >>> other RDF syntaxes will appear and one of them will become dominant. >> If that happens, >> >>> it would be good if users could write R2RML in the new syntax. >> >> It takes a while for a new syntax to be invented, be implemented, be >> evangelized, become popular, and become a W3C Recommendation. In the case >> of Turtle, 13 years. A future RDB2RDF WG can relax the Turtle requirement >> for a future R2RML version if demand for other syntaxes materializes. This >> is not something that needs to be considered for R2RML 1.0. >> >> >> >> [[ >> >> PROPOSAL: On ISSUE-57, let's just go with Turtle in order to get R2RML >> 1.0 out of the door. >> > >> > +1 >> > >> > Kingsley >> >> ]] >> >> >> >> Best, >> >> Richard >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >>> All the best, Ashok >> >>> >> >>> On 12/13/2011 12:07 PM, Richard Cyganiak wrote: >> >>>> Souri, what you say here is all correct (well, some nitpicks >> inline), but I still don't see the key question addressed: What makes >> one-w3c-RDF-syntax-MUST better in your eyes? All you do below is show that >> users and implementers will have to go through extra hoops if that proposal >> is accepted, so you're actually sort of making a case against it… >> >>>> >> >>>> On 13 Dec 2011, at 16:34, Souripriya Das wrote: >> >>>>> There are currently two proposed options: >> >>>>> 1) Turtle-syntax-MUST >> >>>>> 2) one-w3c-RDF-syntax-MUST >> >>>>> >> >>>>> The Turtle-syntax-MUST option does not support any syntax other >> than Turtle for the R2RML mapping documents >> >>>> (Right, R2RML *mapping documents* MUST be Turtle. But >> implementations MAY still support any syntax other than Turtle.) >> >>>> >> >>>>> while the one-w3c-RDF-syntax-MUST option only requires at least one >> of the (W3C Recommendation) RDF syntaxes be used for R2RML mapping documents >> >>>>> (while, because of the Turtle-convertibility, still allowing the >> test cases, tutorials, books, etc. to be written in Turtle). >> >>>> But one-w3c-RDF-syntax-MUST would equally allow tutorials and books >> to be written in any other syntax, so we'll get books that teach R2RML >> using RDF/XML syntax, tutorials that teach R2RML using RDFa syntax, et >> cetera. >> >>>> >> >>>>> Again, here is the one-w3c-RDF-syntax-MUST proposal: >> >>>>> [[ >> >>>>> An R2RML mapping document is any document that encodes an R2RML >> mapping graph and >> >>>>> is written in any RDF syntax that is a W3C Recommendation and that >> can be converted to Turtle. >> >>>>> ]] >> >>>>> (By "Turtle" we mean the future Turtle W3C Recommendation) >> >>>>> >> >>>>> The following can be said about the effect of using the above >> proposal: >> >>>>> >> >>>>> ------------------ >> >>>>> Consider an R2RML mapping document written in RDF/XML syntax: >> >>>>> - Is it a conforming R2RML mapping document? >> >>>>> YES. (for Turtle-syntax-MUST: NO) >> >>>> …and this is literally the *only* difference. I don't understand who >> benefits from this. Who is keen on calling an R2RML mapping graph >> serialized in RDF/XML an R2RML mapping document, and why? >> >>>> >> >>>>> - Why? >> >>>>> Because one can convert the document to generate an equivalent >> document written in Turtle syntax. >> >>>>> >> >>>>> --------------------- >> >>>>> Consider an R2RML mapping processor which ONLY accepts R2RML >> mapping documents written in RDF/XML syntax: >> >>>>> - Is it a conforming R2RML mapping processor? >> >>>>> YES. (for Turtle-syntax-MUST: YES) >> >>>>> - Why? >> >>>>> Because it accepts all conforming R2RML mapping documents, written >> in RDF/XML syntax. >> >>>>> >> >>>>> --------------------- >> >>>>> Testing for conformance of an R2RML mapping processor that ONLY >> accepts RDF/XML documents: >> >>>> Yes, it's possible, but it's inconvenient for implementers. What >> advantage balances this inconvenience? >> >>>> >> >>>>> For each test in "tests for conformance" >> >>>>> 1) obtain the mapping documents (written in Turtle syntax) >> >>>>> 2) Convert these Turtle-syntax mapping documents into RDF/XML >> syntax (assuming this is possible) >> >>>>> 3) Process the converted documents >> >>>>> 4) Run the corresponding SPARQL queries from "tests for >> conformance" and compare the results >> >>>>> 5) If query results match, then this processor is indeed a >> conforming R2RML mapping processor >> >>>>> >> >>>>> --------------------- >> >>>>> Sharing of an R2RML mapping document between two non-overlapping >> syntax accepting processors: >> >>>> Yes, it's possible, but it's inconvenient for mapping authors and >> admins. What advantage balances this inconvenience? >> >>>> >> >>>> I'm not saying that there is no advantage. I'm just saying that I >> myself can't think of any, and that I can't recall anyone else mentioning >> any! >> >>>> >> >>>> So, which stakeholder (WG members, implementers [incl. Oracle], >> mapping authors) benefits from one-w3c-RDF-syntax-MUST, and how? >> >>>> >> >>>> Best, >> >>>> Richard >> >>>> >> >>>> >> >>>>> - MappingProcessor1 accepts ONLY RDF/XML and MappingProcessor2 >> accepts ONLY N-Triples >> >>>>> - an R2RML mapping document (written in RDF/XML) and used at >> MappingProcessor1 is to be shared with MappingProcessor2 >> >>>>> - convert the mapping document into an equivalent N-Triples >> document (via Turtle, if direct conversion is not possible) >> >>>>> - present the N-Triples R2RML mapping document to MappingProcessor2 >> >>>>> >> >>>>> Thanks, >> >>>>> - Souri. >> >>>>> >> >>>>> ----- Original Message ----- >> >>>>> From: richard@cyganiak.de >> >>>>> To: souripriya.das@oracle.com >> >>>>> Cc: public-rdb2rdf-wg@w3.org >> >>>>> Sent: Wednesday, December 7, 2011 1:52:14 PM GMT -05:00 US/Canada >> Eastern >> >>>>> Subject: Re: What is Oracle's objection to the use of Turtle as >> R2RML syntax? >> >>>>> >> >>>>> On 7 Dec 2011, at 18:07, Souripriya Das wrote: >> >>>>>> Instead of the following definition of the mapping document: >> >>>>>> >> >>>>>> [[ >> >>>>>> An R2RML mapping document is any document written in the Turtle >> [TURTLE] RDF syntax that encodes an R2RML mapping graph. >> >>>>>> ]] >> >>>>>> >> >>>>>> we propose the following: >> >>>>>> >> >>>>>> [[ >> >>>>>> An R2RML mapping document is any document that encodes an R2RML >> mapping graph and >> >>>>>> is written in any RDF syntax that is a W3C Recommendation and can >> be converted to Turtle [2]. >> >>>>>> ]] >> >>>>> Why is this better? >> >>>>> >> >>>>> Richard >> >>>>> >> >> >> >> >> > >> > >> > -- >> > >> > Regards, >> > >> > Kingsley Idehen >> > Founder& CEO >> > OpenLink Software >> > Company Web: http://www.openlinksw.com >> > Personal Weblog: http://www.openlinksw.com/blog/~kidehen >> > Twitter/Identi.ca handle: @kidehen >> > Google+ Profile: https://plus.google.com/112399767740508618350/about >> > LinkedIn Profile: http://www.linkedin.com/in/kidehen >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> >> >> >
Received on Wednesday, 14 December 2011 14:08:59 UTC