- From: ashok malhotra <ashok.malhotra@oracle.com>
- Date: Sat, 04 Feb 2012 07:12:29 -0800
- To: public-rdb2rdf-wg@w3.org
I agree All the best, Ashok On 2/4/2012 3:34 AM, Richard Cyganiak wrote: > 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 15:12:00 UTC