Re: Proposed Resolution for Issue 42

On 31 May 2011, at 21:18, Alexandre Bertails wrote:
> I totally agree on the fact we can act triples later. But I just want to
> point out the fact that we may have to change this solution later (for
> consistency issue for example).

Not *change*, just *add to it*, right?

>> 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.
> 
> Because I also like to know what I am agreeing to

:-)

> can I ask you to produce a real example involving the use of rdfs:domain?

Table T with columns col1,col2,col3:

<T#col1> rdfs:domain <T>.
<T#col2> rdfs:domain <T>.
<T#col3> rdfs:domain <T>.

Best,
Richard