Re: Are empty R2RML mappings valid?

On 16 Jun 2012, at 20:05, Juan Sequeda wrote:
> Additionally, something I brought up offline to Boris: for the cases that have non-conforming R2RML mappings, if a system generates an empty file... is that wrong?

The spec defines what an R2RML processor has to do with conforming R2RML mappings. It does *not* define what an R2RML processor has to do with a non-conforming mapping. In other words, error handling is left unspecified, and is up to the implementation.

OTOH, user expectations still matter here of course. Users will probably prefer an error message over a silent empty output.


Received on Saturday, 16 June 2012 22:56:37 UTC