W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-rdb2rdf-comments@w3.org > August 2012

Re: direct mapping row node IRI PK order

From: Juan Sequeda <juanfederico@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 21 Aug 2012 13:16:45 -0500
Message-ID: <CAMVTWDwMy9+612fvU++NTix+rEfhKivQ2Op9kmFyV6ny+qCraw@mail.gmail.com>
To: Paul Tyson <phtyson@sbcglobal.net>
Cc: public-rdb2rdf-comments@w3.org
Paul,

Apologies for the late reply.

It seems that a response to your email was sent to another rdb2rdf mailing
list.

Eric's response:
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdb2rdf-wg/2012Aug/0020.html
Richard's response:
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdb2rdf-wg/2012Aug/0021.html

Does this answer your question?

Regards,

Juan Sequeda
+1-575-SEQ-UEDA
www.juansequeda.com


On Tue, Aug 14, 2012 at 9:14 PM, Paul Tyson <phtyson@sbcglobal.net> wrote:

> Regarding http://www.w3.org/TR/2012/PR-rdb-direct-mapping-20120814/.
>
> The definition of the row node IRI in section 3 says "for each column in
> the primary key, in order...".
>
> Is there a canonical ordering for primary key constraints? The examples
> appear to follow the order of PK declaration in a DDL clause.
>
> Perhaps the definition should clarify the intended order of PK column
> names in the row node IRI. If such an order cannot be reliably derived
> from database metadata, maybe lexical ordering could be prescribed.
>
> Also, in the row node definition, the last 3rd-level bullet says "if it
> is not the last column in the foreign key,...". Perhaps that should be
> "...in the primary key,..."?
>
> Regards,
> --Paul
>
>
>
Received on Tuesday, 21 August 2012 18:17:34 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 21 August 2012 18:17:34 GMT