Re: Proposed Resolution for Issue 42

Hi Alexandre,

On 31 May 2011, at 20:27, Alexandre Bertails wrote:
>> I would agree to a proposal that maintains reversibility of the mapping by adding rdfs:domain triples to the properties, and does not generate triples for NULL values.
> 
> I think that for the moment, we can agree on the current proposal
> without speaking about any concrete solution, which will come later when
> we're ready for it.

No, because I'd like to know what I am agreeing to. I would likely be opposed to a solution that introduces a parliament of OWL into the direct mapping in order to work around the NULL issue.

> rdfs:domain may be enough for this issue, but we may want other information as well.

I think we all agree that rdfs:domain is *necessary*.

I believe that it is also *sufficient* to reconstruct the NULLs, and have seen no claims to the contrary.

So let's go with rdfs:domain *only* as the resolution to ISSUE-42.

More schema triples may still be added to the direct mapping later on, but that needs to be discussed, and it can't be discussed before there's a proposal on the table. So I suggest treating additional schema triples as a different and separate issue (which someone should create in the tracker).

PROPOSAL: Resolve ISSUE-42 by not creating triples for NULL values, and adding rdfs:domain statements to the direct mapping graph. This does not preclude adding more schema triples in a future resolution.

Best,
Richard

Received on Tuesday, 31 May 2011 19:53:39 UTC