Re: Formal objection to ISSUE-2 resolution

On Tue, Jun 28, 2011 at 1:44 PM, Richard Cyganiak <richard@cyganiak.de>wrote:

>
> Does adding this help?
>
> [[
> Conforming R2RML processors MAY accept R2RML mapping graphs encoded in
> other RDF syntaxes besides Turtle.
> ]]
>

Richard - I think that would match what we discussed today on the working
group telecon. Others please speak up if this is not the case.

(Perhaps I am over-analyzing it but when I read that statement I imagine the
following scenario: some implementation supports RDF-XML. They are within
the spec. Does this mean that a user could create a mapping for this
implementation, represent it with RDF-XML and still be within the spec? And
once a user can do that don't all of your questions about interoperability
come into play?.)

-David