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

> 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?
>
> Which other syntaxes besides Turtle are you thinking of? I guess you're
> thinking about an XML-based syntax in particular?


It seems like a really easy way to achieve the apparent goal of the charter
statement is to say that R2RML can be represented with RDF/XML.


> The requirements for human-readability (to some extent) and RDF are
> satisfied by Turtle.
>

Right. (Although I received numerous comments at Semtech regarding the
verbosity of the Turtle representation and a desire for a more concise
syntax, but yes I agree it satisfies the goal of a human-readable syntax.)


> We could add a sentence:
>
> [[
> Conforming implementations MAY support other RDF serializations besides
> Turtle.
> ]]
>
> Do you think it's worth stating this explicitly?
>


> To be honest, I was thinking that this is obviously true even if left
> unstated, and I think it's obvious that many implementations will want to do
> this.
>

> But adding the sentence wouldn't hurt.
>
>
I see your point, that seems fairly obvious. (Of course, I still find it
surprising that R2RML would pick a preferred serialization format.)  Would
adding that sentence satisfy the goal of the charter to provide an XML
representation?

-David