Re: CSV+ Direct Mapping candidate?

On Mar 2, 2014, at 9:43 AM, Andy Seaborne <andy@apache.org> wrote:
> 
> 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.

+1 too.

IMO, 2014 is an integer, "2014" is a string. Column metadata should be able to type field as datatyped literal, reference or identifier.

Direct mapping simply generates either anonymous records, or records identified by fragid, also using fragids to compose properties based on column names: simplest possible transformation to triples in the absence of metadata. Mapping metadata allows more sophisticated mappings.

Gregg

>    Andy
>

Received on Sunday, 2 March 2014 17:57:39 UTC