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

> 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.
Right. I would say that R2RML is represented as RDF and point to the well
known serialization formats as alternate implementations. We could point out
that an R2RML implementation does not have to support all of them. We could
also point out that R2RML does not address conversion between formats which
strikes me as a solved problem.

In terms of interoperability I think the use of vendor specific SQL in a
mapping is much more significant than the RDF serialization format used.


Received on Tuesday, 21 June 2011 18:42:53 UTC