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

Raising issues/actions for Souri's comments

From: Richard Cyganiak <richard@cyganiak.de>
Date: Tue, 30 Aug 2011 18:09:28 +0100
Message-Id: <8077B75E-32BB-4616-B207-02AB39168BCF@cyganiak.de>
Cc: W3C RDB2RDF <public-rdb2rdf-wg@w3.org>
To: Souripriya Das <souripriya.das@oracle.com>
Hi Souri,

> translation scheme (we need a simpler scheme for mapping: <DB value(s), RDF term>)

Ok, I've seen you've made ISSUE-66:
http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/rdb2rdf/track/issues/66

So, ISSUE-61 should be considered as having a dependency on ISSUE-66.
http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/rdb2rdf/track/issues/61

I guess there's an action on you to come up with a proposal. Note that there's some rationale for the current design in this message:
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdb2rdf-wg/2011Aug/0149.html

> ISSUE-57 refinement of the note regarding the alternate proposal

ISSUE-57 is still open, so there's an action on you to propose new wording.

> correcting Sec 2.6 example,

I just read 2.6 again, and couldn't find a problem, so need more info, either via mail or via a new issue.
http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/rdb2rdf/r2rml/#example-m2m

> graphMap association with POMap

I guess the idea is to associate graph maps with p-o maps instead of (or in addition to) object maps? This needs discussion. Could you raise an issue and state the rationale?

Best,
Richard
Received on Tuesday, 30 August 2011 17:10:12 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 30 August 2011 17:10:12 GMT