Re: Are empty R2RML mappings valid?

On 20 Jun 2012, at 09:29, Michael Hausenblas wrote:
>> There was a resolution about this yesterday?
> 
> We did not discuss this but as there were no objections, consider it resolved and please go ahead with it as pointed out below.

+1 to keeping the spec as is (require one or more rr:TriplesMap instances) and remove the test case.

Best,
Richard


> 
> Cheers,
> 	   Michael
> 
> --
> Dr. Michael Hausenblas, Research Fellow
> DERI - Digital Enterprise Research Institute
> NUIG - National University of Ireland, Galway
> Ireland, Europe
> Tel.: +353 91 495730
> WebID: http://sw-app.org/mic.xhtml#i
> 
> On 20 Jun 2012, at 09:22, Boris Villazon-Terrazas wrote:
> 
>> hi all
>> 
>> There was a resolution about this yesterday?
>> 
>> Boris
>> 
>> On Jun 18, 2012, at 1:45 AM, ashok malhotra wrote:
>> 
>>> 
>>> On 6/17/2012 2:56 PM, Boris Villazon-Terrazas wrote:
>>>> 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.
>>> Yes, I think that's best.  Anyone disagree?
>>> 
>>> Ashok
>>> 
>> 
>> 
> 
> 

Received on Wednesday, 20 June 2012 10:33:02 UTC