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

On 21 Jun 2011, at 19:06, David McNeil wrote:
> I don't understand why we are addressing RDF serialization in this way. Seems that we could say that R2RML mappings are represented as RDF. The examples in the spec use Turtle, but other serialization formats are fine. What am I missing?

Well, you need to define conformance somehow. If my R2RML editor can only produce, say, RDFa, is it conforming to R2RML? If your R2RML processor only understands, say, RDF/XML, is it conforming to R2RML? And do they interoperate?

Interoperability requires shared syntax. RDF is not a syntax, Turtle is.


Received on Tuesday, 21 June 2011 18:21:36 UTC