How to achieve Implementation-Indepencence of RML Functions?

[tobiasschweizer]

Hi there,

Last summer I started using RML for the generation of RDF. Since the beginning, I have been using RMLMapper and CARML in parallel because I think any given mapping should be processable by either of the two engines.

Now I've started looking at using RML functions. So far, I could handle quite a lot of issues with preprocessing, but as you write, this inhibits reuse. Also it weakens the declarative approach because the preprocessing is most likely procedural. I understand that FnO aims at describing functions formally without being bound to a specific implementation. I guess this is inspired by a functional programming paradigm.

I understand that it is not the goal to a have a standard library interface (maybe something like the JSON-LD processor interface) that would have to be implemented by every engine but something more flexible.

But how would this work in practice? Would I implement a function in Java and then register it in RMLmapper and CARML, respectively? What about RML engines that are not implemented with JVM technologies?

Thanks for your feedback!

Tobias

[dachafra]

@tobiasschweizer I'm going to move this to the forum, as it's more a discussion than an issue for the FNML spec. Hope that it will be fine for you.