- From: Enrico Franconi <franconi@inf.unibz.it>
- Date: Sun, 5 Jun 2011 09:52:39 +0200
- To: ashok.malhotra@oracle.com
- Cc: RDB2RDF WG <public-rdb2rdf-wg@w3.org>
On 5 Jun 2011, at 02:52, ashok malhotra wrote: > I think a possible solution is: > 1) Do not generate any triples where the RDB has NULLs > 2) Add a note that says, This rule is only one interpretation of NULL semantics. No. Unless there is an explanation on which "interpretation" are we talking about. At the current state of the (non)discussion, this "interpretation" is arbitrary, since it is unknown how to relate it to the semantics of the NULL of the rdb it comes from. So the note should say that it is unknown how to relate this interpretation to the semantics of the NULL of the rdb it comes from. It is important to warn the user about what he/she is buying with this interpretation. > Users that prefer alternate NULL semantics should use R2RML. Before that: 1.5) as an alternative (via a flag) do generate triples where the RDB has NULLs using a special recognisable constant, with a note saying that in this case it is possible (by following some simple recipes for SPARQL or rules or other access methods) to relate this interpretation to the semantics of the NULL of the rdb it comes from. cheers --e.
Received on Sunday, 5 June 2011 07:53:08 UTC