W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-xg-rdb2rdf@w3.org > January 2009

Re: Bi-directional mapping (RDF2RDB)

From: Kingsley Idehen <kidehen@openlinksw.com>
Date: Sat, 10 Jan 2009 12:57:32 -0500
Message-ID: <4968E18C.5030103@openlinksw.com>
To: ashok.malhotra@oracle.com
CC: Sören Auer <auer@informatik.uni-leipzig.de>, public-xg-rdb2rdf <public-xg-rdb2rdf@w3.org>

On 1/10/09 12:26 PM, ashok malhotra wrote:
> Hi Soeren:
> This is an important area but I think we should wait until the WG 
> starts and then add this an a requirement.
> If we add it to our final report we risk diluting our message.
> All the best, Ashok

It would certainly pose a distraction, so I agree.

But we can add a note that indicates the notion of update-able views 
isn't lost re. the thinking of the group etc..

> Sören Auer wrote:
>> Hi all,
>> as much as I remember we did so far only discuss the mapping from RDB 
>> to RDF. In certain settings it might, however, also make sense to be 
>> able to update the RDB using SPARUL [1]. This might of course be 
>> pretty difficult and not even possible in the general case. In the DB 
>> community there is quite some work about updateable views and some 
>> DBMS even support them - if our mapping would be able to distinguish 
>> between mappings which represent updateable views and those which 
>> don't we would get (partial) updateability for free.
>> Maybe this is to much to be discussed now in the XG or to be added as 
>> a requirement to the recommendation (or shall we?) - but probably 
>> worth keeping in mind once a WG was chartered.
>> Have a nice weekend everybody,
>> Sören
>> [1] http://jena.hpl.hp.com/~afs/SPARQL-Update.html



Kingsley Idehen	      Weblog: http://www.openlinksw.com/blog/~kidehen
President&  CEO
OpenLink Software     Web: http://www.openlinksw.com
Received on Saturday, 10 January 2009 17:58:11 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 19:51:39 UTC