W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-rdb2rdf-wg@w3.org > October 2010

Re: RDB2RDF WG agenda for 2010-10-19 meeting 1600 UTC

From: Richard Cyganiak <richard@cyganiak.de>
Date: Mon, 18 Oct 2010 22:23:31 +0100
Cc: Alexandre Bertails <bertails@w3.org>, Paul Tyson <phtyson@sbcglobal.net>, ashok.malhotra@oracle.com, Michael Hausenblas <michael.hausenblas@deri.org>, RDB2RDF WG <public-rdb2rdf-wg@w3.org>
Message-Id: <2F8C26B6-7843-4903-AA0A-D410B7022F20@cyganiak.de>
To: Eric Prud'hommeaux <eric@w3.org>

On 18 Oct 2010, at 21:53, Eric Prud'hommeaux wrote:
> How about either a
> stronger predicate:
>  <http://foo.example/DB/People#_> rdfdb:hasAttribute People:ID .
> or some type annotations:
>  <http://foo.example/DB/People#_> a rdfdb:Relation ;
>    rdfs:member People:ID .
>  People:ID a rdfdb:RelationAttribute .
>
> My preference is the former, possibly with some domain and range
> assertions for rdfdb:hasAttribute, which would look like:
>  rdfdb:hasAttribute rdfs:domain rdfdb:Relation ;
>                     rdfs:range rdfdb:RelationAttribute .
>
> Does that meet your requirements? Is it attractive enough?

Either of these work for me.

We should at some point consider standardizing our terminology. In  
R2RML I'm eager to use the SQL spec's terminology (which would be  
Table and Column, or possible BaseTable and Column). You use  
relational algebra terminology. I guess this is better discussed and  
decided later when we have more material on the table, so for now I'm  
ok with the above.

Richard



>
>
>> Richard
>
> -- 
> -ericP
Received on Monday, 18 October 2010 21:24:07 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:00:21 UTC