- From: Boris Villazon-Terrazas <bvillazon@fi.upm.es>
- Date: Sun, 17 Jun 2012 23:56:04 +0200
- To: Richard Cyganiak <richard@cyganiak.de>
- Cc: Juan Sequeda <juanfederico@gmail.com>, W3C RDB2RDF <public-rdb2rdf-wg@w3.org>
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 Boris > > Best, > Richard
Received on Sunday, 17 June 2012 21:56:24 UTC