Re: Request for comments: suggesting some minor R2RML changes

On Thu, Jul 7, 2011 at 1:34 PM, Richard Cyganiak <>wrote:

> Allowing constant blank nodes might raise expectations that the following
> two would generate the same blank node:
> [ rr:subject _:1 ]
> [ rr:template "1"; rr:termType "BlankNode"; ]

Richard - Thanks for the explanation. I think I see what you are talking
about now. The _:1 blank node is a blank node in the _mapping_ graph.
Whereas the blank node defined by the rr:template is a blank node in the
_output_ graph. And these can never be the same node since they are in
different graphs. (I see now that you originally said this, but I missed it)
This confusion is avoided by not allowing the output of the mapping to
reference blank nodes from the mapping document itself (i.e. "don't cross
the streams"). I think I am on board with your suggestion now.


Received on Thursday, 7 July 2011 18:52:29 UTC