Re: Request for comments: suggesting some minor R2RML changes

On Wed, Jul 6, 2011 at 3:45 AM, Richard Cyganiak <>wrote:

> 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.

Richard - I am not sure I understand exactly what you are suggesting. Are
you talking about a construct like this:

rr:subjectMap [ rr:subject _:1]

This gives the ability to define two TriplesMaps that refer to the same
constant blank node. Offhand I don't see why this would be prohibited. The
fact that blank nodes are not shared between graphs seems orthogonal to this
question. But maybe I am not understanding you right?


Received on Thursday, 7 July 2011 15:01:37 UTC