- From: Richard Cyganiak <richard@cyganiak.de>
- Date: Sat, 4 Feb 2012 11:34:09 +0000
- To: Souripriya Das <souripriya.das@oracle.com>
- Cc: Public-Rdb2rdf-Wg <public-rdb2rdf-wg@w3.org>
On 3 Feb 2012, at 23:30, Souripriya Das wrote: > Noticed that some people seem to be using rr:termtype [1] (similar to rr:datatype), instead of rr:termType. The RDF spec defines the concept “datatype”. The R2RML spec defines the concept “term type”. By usual camel-case naming conventions, this yields rr:datatype and rr:termType. So the current capitalization is at least logical. But it's certainly easy for mapping authors to mix it up and make mistakes. Changing the capitalization just for rr:termType would seem a bit arbitrary – it opens up the question why we don't review the capitalization of all terms and try to make it easier for authors. Some people probably would prefer rr:tablename and rr:objectmap. I'd prefer not to do this at this late stage in the process, but could perhaps be convinced otherwise. Best, Richard > > Thanks, > - Souri. > > [1] http://code.google.com/p/morph/source/browse/branches/stream/src/test/resources/mappings/example4.r2r?spec=svn24&r=24 >
Received on Saturday, 4 February 2012 11:34:40 UTC