Do we have consensus that we don't need more R2RML syntaxes?

ISSUE-2: R2RML serializations
http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/rdb2rdf/track/issues/2

You may recall from the early days of the WG that we kept the option open to define further syntaxes besides the Turtle syntax. In particular, we considered doing an XML version.

I propose that we resolve not do this, and stick with just the Turtle syntax.

This affects the following points from the Charter
[[
 The mapping language SHOULD have a human-readable syntax
 as well as XML and RDF representations of the syntax for
 purposes of discovery and machine generation.
 The mapping language SHOULD use W3C RIF whenever a rule
 engine is needed in the mapping language.
]]
http://www.w3.org/2009/08/rdb2rdf-charter

The argument here is:

- Turtle is *somewhat* human-readable, so that's addressed
- XML is a SHOULD, and we decide not to do it
- Turtle is RDF, so that's ok
- The mapping language doesn't employ a rules language,
 so no need to use RIF

So,

[[
PROPOSAL: The WG will not produce any further R2RML syntaxes beside the Turtle version. This resolves ISSUE-2.
]]

Best,
Richard

Received on Tuesday, 21 June 2011 17:57:14 UTC