Re: Are empty R2RML mappings valid?

Hi all
On Jun 17, 2012, at 12:56 AM, Richard Cyganiak wrote:

> 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.

Ok, Richard thanks for your comment.

Regarding the empty R2RML TC, it is not compliant with the latest version of the spec. I can remove that TC if everyone's agree.



> Best,
> Richard

Received on Sunday, 17 June 2012 21:56:24 UTC