- From: Tomasz Pluskiewicz <tomasz.pluskiewicz@gmail.com>
- Date: Mon, 30 Jul 2012 21:52:59 +0200
- To: Richard Cyganiak <richard@cyganiak.de>
- Cc: Juan Sequeda <juanfederico@gmail.com>, David McNeil <dmcneil@revelytix.com>, public-rdb2rdf-comments@w3.org
Fair enough :) Thanks again for answering. Regards, Tomasz On Mon, Jul 30, 2012 at 11:37 AM, Richard Cyganiak <richard@cyganiak.de> wrote: > Tomasz, > > On 28 Jul 2012, at 19:11, Tomasz Pluskiewicz wrote: >> Thank you Richard for answering. Your suggestion does not convice me. >> With such a template consisting of all column names there would be a >> problem with NULL column values. If any value was NULL, then the RDF >> term generation process would return null subject and the whole row >> would be ignored. > > Well, yes. > >> I doubt this is the intended outcome. Or is it? > > The specs only define what shapes of output graphs are considered conforming. I think the specs do this clearly and unambiguously. The specs do not mandate or constrain what the default mapping itself looks like, as long as it produces one of the specified output graphs. The rest is the job of the implementers. > > Adding a mechanism for generating a fresh blank node for every logical table row to R2RML was discussed, but it didn't make the cut for R2RML 1.0. > > Best, > Richard
Received on Monday, 30 July 2012 19:54:01 UTC