- From: Andy Seaborne <andy@apache.org>
- Date: Sun, 02 Mar 2014 17:43:18 +0000
- To: Richard Cyganiak <richard@cyganiak.de>, David Booth <david@dbooth.org>
- CC: Niklas Lindström <lindstream@gmail.com>, Gregg Kellogg <gregg@greggkellogg.net>, "public-csv-wg@w3.org" <public-csv-wg@w3.org>
On 01/03/14 14:59, Richard Cyganiak wrote: > David, > > Let me first add one more clarification. I don't think of a Tarql > mapping as a CSV-to-RDF mapping. I think of it as a > logical-table-to-RDF mapping. Whether the table comes from CSV, TSV, > SAS, SPSS or relational doesn't matter, as long as we define a > sensible mapping from each of these syntaxes to a table of RDF terms > with named columns. These mappings are generally easy to define, > lossless, and don't add much arbitrary extra information. +1 to having this step brought out explicitly. We can deal with syntax to RDF terms step, involving syntax details and any additional information to guide choice of datatypes (is 2014 a string, an integer, a Gregorian year?), and then have a step of putting into RDF, whether direct or mapped. Andy
Received on Sunday, 2 March 2014 17:43:47 UTC