Re: Making R2RML ready for CR

On Tue, Jan 31, 2012 at 9:52 AM, Michael Hausenblas <
michael.hausenblas@deri.org> wrote:

>
>  The CR exit criteria is to be decided by the WG. *Usually* we say that
>> there should be 2 independent implementation for every feature in the spec,
>> but what 'every feature' means is up to us to decide. And we may also
>> formulate another criteria.
>>
>
>
>
> Our charter [1] says:
>
>  Success Criteria
>>
>>        • Timely preparation of the deliverables. See below.
>>
>
>
> Yeah, right.
>
>
>
>         • At least two conforming implementations of the mapping language,
>> perhaps embedded into products that provide additional functionality.
>>
>
>
> Ah!
>
>         • Mapping library for applications such as Drupal, Wordpress, or
>> phpBB
>>
>
> Hu?
>

My understanding is to  have an R2RML file for Drupal, Wordpress, etc.
Therefore, anybody can take that R2RML Drupal file and use it to
rdb2rdf-ize the Drupal database.

Did I just coin "rdb2rdf-ize"?


> Cheers,
>        Michael
>
> [1] http://www.w3.org/2009/08/**rdb2rdf-charter#scope<http://www.w3.org/2009/08/rdb2rdf-charter#scope>
> --
> Dr. Michael Hausenblas, Research Fellow
> LiDRC - Linked Data Research Centre
> DERI - Digital Enterprise Research Institute
> NUIG - National University of Ireland, Galway
> Ireland, Europe
> Tel. +353 91 495730
> http://linkeddata.deri.ie/
> http://sw-app.org/about.html
>
>
> On 31 Jan 2012, at 15:48, Ivan Herman wrote:
>
>
>> On Jan 31, 2012, at 16:29 , Richard Cyganiak wrote:
>>
>>  All,
>>>
>>> I've done some last pre-CR work on the R2RML ED:
>>> http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/**rdb2rdf/r2rml/<http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/rdb2rdf/r2rml/>
>>>
>>> I made the HTML validate, fixed some broken links and anchors, updated
>>> some timestamped URLs, and started work on the SotD section. I've updated
>>> the “Changes since previous draft” section in the SotD. This section now
>>> references the following relevant links:
>>>
>>> * Detailed description of R2RML changes since the LC working draft:
>>> http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/**rdb2rdf/wiki/Last_Call_**Changes_to_R2RML<http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/rdb2rdf/wiki/Last_Call_Changes_to_R2RML>
>>> * Full diff of all changes since the LC working draft:
>>> http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/**rdb2rdf/r2rml/diffs/LC-CR.html<http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/rdb2rdf/r2rml/diffs/LC-CR.html>
>>>
>>> Some work is still needed:
>>>
>>> - fill in some @@@'s in the SotD section
>>> - update timestamped links to other RDB2RDF drafts in the References
>>> section
>>> - make a timestamped copy in CVS, and in that copy:
>>> - update version URL in the header
>>> - apply CR stylesheet
>>> - remove CVS history section (also from ToC)
>>>
>>> In particular I need input regarding the CR exit criteria for the SotD,
>>> and help with the other SotD boilerplate. Ivan?
>>>
>>
>> The CR exit criteria is to be decided by the WG. *Usually* we say that
>> there should be 2 independent implementation for every feature in the spec,
>> but what 'every feature' means is up to us to decide. And we may also
>> formulate another criteria.
>>
>> I guess there was some sort of an agreement on not defining another
>> mailing list for the comments (which is fine with me, b.t.w.).
>>
>> Anything else?
>>
>> Ivan
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> Best,
>>> Richard
>>>
>>
>>
>> ----
>> Ivan Herman, W3C Semantic Web Activity Lead
>> Home: http://www.w3.org/People/Ivan/
>> mobile: +31-641044153
>> FOAF: http://www.ivan-herman.net/**foaf.rdf<http://www.ivan-herman.net/foaf.rdf>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>