- From: Juan Sequeda <juanfederico@gmail.com>
- Date: Tue, 21 Aug 2012 13:16:45 -0500
- To: Paul Tyson <phtyson@sbcglobal.net>
- Cc: public-rdb2rdf-comments@w3.org
- Message-ID: <CAMVTWDwMy9+612fvU++NTix+rEfhKivQ2Op9kmFyV6ny+qCraw@mail.gmail.com>
Paul, Apologies for the late reply. It seems that a response to your email was sent to another rdb2rdf mailing list. Eric's response: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdb2rdf-wg/2012Aug/0020.html Richard's response: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdb2rdf-wg/2012Aug/0021.html Does this answer your question? Regards, Juan Sequeda +1-575-SEQ-UEDA www.juansequeda.com On Tue, Aug 14, 2012 at 9:14 PM, Paul Tyson <phtyson@sbcglobal.net> wrote: > Regarding http://www.w3.org/TR/2012/PR-rdb-direct-mapping-20120814/. > > The definition of the row node IRI in section 3 says "for each column in > the primary key, in order...". > > Is there a canonical ordering for primary key constraints? The examples > appear to follow the order of PK declaration in a DDL clause. > > Perhaps the definition should clarify the intended order of PK column > names in the row node IRI. If such an order cannot be reliably derived > from database metadata, maybe lexical ordering could be prescribed. > > Also, in the row node definition, the last 3rd-level bullet says "if it > is not the last column in the foreign key,...". Perhaps that should be > "...in the primary key,..."? > > Regards, > --Paul > > >
Received on Tuesday, 21 August 2012 18:17:34 UTC