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

* David McNeil <dmcneil@revelytix.com> [2011-06-22 08:00-0500]
> > 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.

We could make it abundantly clear that we are just
going through the motions:

Content-Type: application/xml-for-xml's-sake+xml
<root>
  @prefix rr: &lt;http://www.w3.org/ns/r2rml#&gt; .
  @prefix rdf: &lt;http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#&gt; .
  …
  &lt;#TriplesMap1&gt;
      a rr:TriplesMapClass;
      rr:SQLQuery """
         Select Concat('Department', "deptno") AS "deptId" , "deptno"
              , "dname"
              , "loc"
           from SCOTT.DEPT where depto &gt; 1000
         """;
  …
  &lt;/#TriplesMap1&gt;
</root>

> -David

-- 
-ericP

Received on Wednesday, 22 June 2011 19:42:14 UTC