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

Re: Bi-directional mapping (RDF2RDB)

From: Michael Hausenblas <michael.hausenblas@deri.org>
Date: Sat, 10 Jan 2009 18:02:53 +0000
To: <ashok.malhotra@oracle.com>
CC: Sören Auer <auer@informatik.uni-leipzig.de>, public-xg-rdb2rdf <public-xg-rdb2rdf@w3.org>, Kingsley Idehen <kidehen@openlinksw.com>
Message-ID: <C58E934D.E9D%michael.hausenblas@deri.org>


Ashok, All,

Let me clarify my position here: it should of course go into the XG report
as to not 'lose' any of our thoughts here; however, maybe it is wiser not to
push it too far and directly put it into the charter, yes, here we seem to
agree.

Cheers,
Michael 

-- 
Dr. Michael Hausenblas
DERI - Digital Enterprise Research Institute
National University of Ireland, Lower Dangan,
Galway, Ireland, Europe
Tel. +353 91 495730
http://sw-app.org/about.html


> From: Kingsley Idehen <kidehen@openlinksw.com>
> Date: Sat, 10 Jan 2009 12:57:32 -0500
> To: <ashok.malhotra@oracle.com>
> Cc: Sören Auer <auer@informatik.uni-leipzig.de>, public-xg-rdb2rdf
> <public-xg-rdb2rdf@w3.org>
> Subject: Re: Bi-directional mapping (RDF2RDB)
> Resent-From: <public-xg-rdb2rdf@w3.org>
> Resent-Date: Sat, 10 Jan 2009 17:58:12 +0000
> 
> 
> 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
> 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..
> 
> Kingsley
>> 
>> 
>> 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
>>> 
>> 
>> 
> 
> 
> -- 
> 
> 
> Regards,
> 
> Kingsley Idehen       Weblog: http://www.openlinksw.com/blog/~kidehen
> President&  CEO
> OpenLink Software     Web: http://www.openlinksw.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
Received on Saturday, 10 January 2009 18:03:35 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Saturday, 10 January 2009 18:03:36 GMT