W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-rdb2rdf-wg@w3.org > August 2011

Re: Addressing ISSUE-64 and ISSUE-65

From: David McNeil <dmcneil@revelytix.com>
Date: Wed, 10 Aug 2011 12:28:46 -0500
Message-ID: <CA+8VvdzDwCJBqUXWmcodktt5wSW-Ab9uPtLw7DQnRVOpEKe2KQ@mail.gmail.com>
To: Juan Sequeda <juanfederico@gmail.com>
Cc: public-rdb2rdf-wg@w3.org
> can you give me a real use-case where there is a need of multiple foreign
> keys from the same columns.

Juan - This raises the question in my mind: is it a requirement for the
Direct Mapping to capture all of the FK relationships? My assumption was
that we wanted the Direct Mapping to capture all of them and would be
considered a failure if it dropped some of them (would there be a
deterministic way to identify which one to drop?). But from your question it
seems that it is OK for a FK to be dropped and it is just a question of how
common the scenario is. In that case I would say it is not very common.

Regarding ISSUE-65, it seems useful to me that the presence of a FK is
purely additive in terms of the triples produced. So I agree with Souri's
points and recommendation.

Received on Wednesday, 10 August 2011 17:29:13 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:00:26 UTC