- From: Juan Sequeda <juanfederico@gmail.com>
- Date: Wed, 14 Dec 2011 15:22:39 -0500
- To: Richard Cyganiak <richard@cyganiak.de>
- Cc: ashok.malhotra@oracle.com, public-rdb2rdf-wg@w3.org
- Message-ID: <CAMVTWDxb49_1uyiW33fqc4v-NBQDndAtobW96rbZ0gdKRTY5NA@mail.gmail.com>
On Wed, Dec 14, 2011 at 3:04 PM, Richard Cyganiak <richard@cyganiak.de>wrote: > 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. > How about: [[ Turtle [TURTLE] is the single normative syntax for an R2RML mapping document that encodes an R2RML mapping graph ]] I liked the phrase "single normative syntax" > §4 A conforming R2RML processor MUST accept R2RML mapping documents in > Turtle syntax. It MAY accept R2RML mapping graphs encoded in other RDF > syntaxes. > > > +1 > 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 20:23:30 UTC