- From: Anastasia Dimou <anastasia.dimou@ugent.be>
- Date: Thu, 20 Mar 2014 19:06:34 +0100
- To: W3C CSV on the Web Working Group <public-csv-wg@w3.org>
- CC: Juan Sequeda <juanfederico@gmail.com>, Erik Mannens <Erik.Mannens@UGent.be>
On 03/20/2014 06:39 PM, Juan Sequeda wrote: > If there is going to be a CSV to RDF mapping, shouldn't it be > relatively close (if not almost equal to) R2RML. I foresee users doing > RDB2RDF mappings with R2RML and having a few (or many) CSV files that > they would like to map to RDF too. They would want to continue using > the same tool. +1 This is one of the issues we encounter with RML [1]. R2RML defines how the triples are generated considering the values of the columns and not how the columns become triples. That assumption gives a great added value to the language as, with a certain abstraction, the language can be extended to be used for other files as long as there is a way to refer to its data. R2RML uses column names as SQL defines. Considering a certain formalisation that declares how one can refer to data in a CSV file would be enough to use the same language (or at least the same syntax as R2RML) to define the mappings from CSV to RDF. > > What we do is import the CSVs to a RDB, and then use R2RML. So as a > user who needs to transform to RDF, I would want to have something > almost equivalent to R2RML. Indeed, for more complicated cases, for instance where queries are necessary, one could import a CSV to RDB to perform the mappings (but I believe that any conversion between different formats is not needed to be included in the mapping specification). Kind regards, Anastasia [1] http://semweb.mmlab.be/rml/publications/WWW14_LDOW14.pdf -- Anastasia Dimou @natadimou | mmlab.be | iminds.be Semantic Web - Linked Open Data Researcher Ghent University, Belgium - Multimedia Lab - iMinds Gaston Crommenlaan 8 bus 201, B-9050 Ledeberg-Ghent, Belgium
Received on Thursday, 20 March 2014 18:07:06 UTC