Re: What is Oracle's objection to the use of Turtle as R2RML syntax?

Hi Ashok,

On 14 Dec 2011, at 18:55, ashok malhotra wrote:
> Can you send the complete para or couple of sentences that you would like agreement on?

Here are some background definitions (these are undisputed):


§1 An R2RML processor is a system that, given an R2RML mapping and an input database, provides access to the output dataset.

§2 An RDF graph that represents an R2RML mapping is called an R2RML mapping graph.


I would like agreement on the following text:


§3 An R2RML mapping document is any document written in the Turtle [TURTLE] RDF syntax that encodes an R2RML mapping graph.

§4 A conforming R2RML processor MUST accept R2RML mapping documents in Turtle syntax. It MAY accept R2RML mapping graphs encoded in other RDF syntaxes.


As a compromise, I could live with dropping §4, as long as §3 remains unchanged. Implementers of R2RML processors could then claim R2RML conformance regardless of the syntaxes they actually support. Producers of R2RML mappings who want to claim conformance would still have to use Turtle.

Best,
Richard



> All the best, Ashok
> 
> On 12/14/2011 10:39 AM, Richard Cyganiak wrote:
>> Are you ok with a phrasing that says that R2RML processors MAY support other syntaxes? (Saying SHOULD seems difficult because then you kind of want to say which ones should be supported; and that's a tough call.)
>> 
>

Received on Wednesday, 14 December 2011 20:05:35 UTC