Re: R2RML: rr:termType or rr:termtype (like rr:datatype)?

I am not particular about this change either. Just an observation. Thanks. -- Souri.

----- Original Message -----
Sent: Saturday, February 4, 2012 6:34:15 AM GMT -05:00 US/Canada Eastern
Subject: Re: R2RML: rr:termType or rr:termtype (like rr:datatype)?

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.


> Thanks,
> - Souri.
> [1]

Received on Saturday, 4 February 2012 12:15:36 UTC