Re: CSV+ Direct Mapping candidate?

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