Request for comments: suggesting some minor R2RML changes

Below are a number of possible small changes/fixes to R2RML that we should consider. I think most of them are no-brainers, but would like to ask for feedback because they will require changes to the existing implementations. I'd appreciate some quick +1/-1 comments; if anything proves to be controversial, then I'll file it as an issue in the tracker for later discussion.


ISSUE: capitalization of rr:SQLQuery property; according to conventions for predicates, it should be rr:sqlQuery

ISSUE: Why two classes rr:PredicateMap and rr:RefPredicateMap? They behave exactly the same, we could drop the second

ISSUE: Why two properties for rr:predicateObjectMap and rr:refPredicateObjectMap? Better to have just one, and spot the difference by looking at the (ref)objectMap contained within

ISSUE: rr:graphColumn, rr:graphIRI, rr:graphTemplate should be replaced by a rr:graphMap that works just like subjectMap, predicateMap, objectMap. This would simplify the spec, and it's very likely that those graphMaps can be re-used multiple times in a mapping, so shouldn't be more verbose either.

ISSUE: rr:termtype capitalization. rr:termType would be better

ISSUE: rr:subject and rr:object (in constant-valued term maps) should not be allowed to be blank nodes; just IRIs/literals; we say that blank nodes cannot be shared between graphs, so specifying a blank node in the mapping and expecting the *same* blank node to occur in the output data is a bit strange.

ISSUE: I'd like to specify multiple predicates with a single predicateObjectMap, such as rdfs:label + skos:prefLabel. Currently cardinality is exactly 1. Can we loosen the upper bound?

Received on Wednesday, 6 July 2011 08:45:40 UTC