Re: comments on working drafts

Hi Dominique,

On Tue, Sep 20, 2011 at 5:52 PM, Dominique Guardiola
<dguardiola@quinode.fr>wrote:

> On RDB Direct mapping
>
> 2.2 Foreign keys referencing candidate keys
> A syntax using a comma separating the two keys "key1,key2" is mentioned
> twice in this part of the document, while everywhere else the
> "#ref-key1.key2" convention is used.
>

Thank you for letting us know about this typo. I have corrected this [1].

[1] http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/rdb2rdf/directMapping/






>
> On R2RML :
>
> ISSUE-57 :
> Asking for any RDF syntax support should be optional.
> Given the availibility of RDF converters and librairies to make Turtle
> from anyhting, asking for implementations to support all syntaxes is
> excessive.
> To allow time for adoption and real-life experiments with the vocabulary,
> the Turtle syntax should be the only mandatory syntax for processors, so
> that exchange, learning and adoption would not be impaired by
> syntax-related side questions.
>
>
> ISSUE-66 :
> I read the exchanges and the minutes where the final resolution was taken.
> I think this decision is a pity : if you look from the point of view of
> future R2RML end-users , translation tables are a common pattern, which is
> present, for example in most web development frameworks or CMSs.
> Anyone making SQL database knows it's better to use integers columns
> instead of verbose labels in order to :
> - speed up queries
> - allow the renaming of these columns labels easily
> - avoid typos when these columns are also keys (when there's no foreign
> key constraint : think of MyISAM, probably one of the most common DB
> storage)
>
> The use of SKOS here is a false question : it's true this looks like a
> "controlled vocabulary" situation, but I'd follow the argument stating that
> having properties like rr:value, rr:term is simpler for RDF newbies. I
> mean, a vocabulary choice question should not prevent you to provide this
> kind of simple feature.
> Allowing the table to be linked elsewhere is important too, but could be
> added later, as could be more complex mapping techniques.
> But removing this simple tool, a 1:1 code-to-string or code-to-URI table,
> from being part of the recommandation would send IMHO a bad signal to
> newcomers , like "hey, they didn't even think of a straightforward way to
> do that?"
> Having to do pre-queries in a R2RML view just to fetch some labels in a
> separate table (that perhaps doesn't even exists, the labels list being
> hardcoded in the application code) is not really an answer.
>
>
> 9 Assigning Triples to Named Graphs:
> I'm thinking of a case where using a [rr:template ...] would not suffice
> to express the graph URI, how could I use a rule to say "if column A ==
> "abcd" then use g:graph1", or more complex regex rules.
> Would I have to use a R2RML view if I want to do that?
>
>
>
> --
> Dominique Guardiola, QUINODE
> • http://www.quinode.fr/
> • Tel : 04.27.86.84.37
> • Mob : 06.15.13.22.27
>
>
>
>
>
>
>