Re: Do we have consensus that we don't need more R2RML syntaxes? from David McNeil on 2011-06-22 (public-rdb2rdf-wg@w3.org from June 2011)

From: David McNeil <dmcneil@revelytix.com>
Date: Wed, 22 Jun 2011 08:00:08 -0500
To: Richard Cyganiak <richard@cyganiak.de>
Cc: W3C RDB2RDF <public-rdb2rdf-wg@w3.org>
Message-ID: <BANLkTin0g6JLOQ0bipJjoJHHvF3ZHeg+Cg@mail.gmail.com>

> Personally, I'd really prefer not to go there, and just not deliver on the
> “SHOULD have XML representation” goal in the charter. Having a single
> normative syntax is best.
>

Richard - You make a compelling case. Thanks for discussing this.

-David

Received on Wednesday, 22 June 2011 13:00:37 UTC