Re: please read before participating in translation scheme debate [Re: Translating DB values to RDF terms using 1) R2RML views and 2) using R2RML-native translation scheme]

My understanding is that since adding translation tables to R2RML is a
substantive change to the spec it would require restarting the Last Call
cycle. Therefore I think the first step in discussing the feature is to
decide as a group whether we are willing to do that (do we even have time
to do that under our charter?). Personally I think we should try to avoid
going back to another Last Call. I think the right thing to do is to push
forward towards getting a more basic R2RML 1.0 spec out. (Note: this is not
a statement about the usefulness of translation tables, rather I think
there are many useful features which will not appear in R2RML 1.0)

Therefore unless/until the working group decides that we are going to
restart the Last Call cycle, my choice is to spend my time and efforts on:

* reviewing the other last call comments
* making sure they are well reflected in the latest spec
* refining the core parts of the spec that we agree need improvement

This last point is significant to me because my sense is that there is
agreement among the working group that core parts of the spec need
improvement and all we lack is time to do it. Then I think by all means we
should focus on refining and clarifying the core spec rather than debate
new features which are clearly contentious and which would require us to
regress in the process rather than progress.

-David