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

> If an implementation that only supports Turtle and an implementation that
> only supports RDF/XML can both claim to be conforming, then we have failed.
>

Richard - I think I can see your perspective on this: if I can't simply take
an R2RML mapping file from implementation to another then the spec is
broken. However, I am trying to think through this claim in relation to the
charter text: "The mapping language SHOULD have a human-readable syntax as
well as XML and RDF representations of the syntax".

I suppose the two can be reconciled if an implementation is required to
support all of the syntaxes? Another possibility is that is it not failure
to have multiple, optional representations? Or I suppose the charter could
be wrong?

I am curious if anyone is aware of how this issue has been addressed by
other standards which use RDF as their data model.

-David