Re: Formal objection to ISSUE-2 resolution

On Tue, Jun 28, 2011 at 1:04 PM, Richard Cyganiak <richard@cyganiak.de>wrote:

> I was surprised to find in today's minutes [1] a resolution to change the
> design of R2RML, related to ISSUE-2 [2]:
>
> [[
> RESOLUTION: R2RML is defined in terms of an input RDF graph. For
> interoperability simplicity, implementations SHOULD accept at least Turtle
> input.
> ]]
>
>
Richard - If the word "SHOULD" were changed to "MUST" would it be
acceptable? From the discussion that is what I think we were really talking
about (despite what the formal resolution says). We were trying to make it
agree with what you proposed last week.

-David