Hi Ashok,

Thanks for the follow up. I agree with your clarification regarding the mapping SPARQL to SQL is out of scope; having discussion about it if the team want to pursue is fine - I am trying to separate what we discuss, with time constraints, from what we will commit to deliver which we need to pin down early 2010.

I liked the D2R presentation scope in the mapping area; is reasonable.

Regarding DDL statements mapping support: do you envision creating SQL tables in the RDBMS from SPARQL application using R2RML or do you envision the ability through the R2RML to read the different schema objects definitions in the RDBMS from a SPARQL application?  I agree that the latter is a must and would be interested in getting your input as well as others on the first.


-----Original Message-----
From: [] On Behalf Of ashok malhotra
Sent: Wednesday, November 11, 2009 13:58
Subject: ISSUE-3

Since the goal of the WG is to create a mapping from RDB Schemas to 
RDF/OWL classes, perhaps
we should rephrase the bullet point in the requirements as

    * The mapping language MUST define the set of SQL DDL
      to be supported in the first release. The set to be supported
      SHOULD be as complete as possible and be defined as soon as
      possible after the WG official launch.

This will let us exclude Table Types if we wish.

I apologize that the original bullet was interpreted to mean that the 
the WG should define
a mapping from SPARQL to SQL.  That was not the intention.  In my view, 
the mapping of
SPARQL to SQL should be left open as a technology on which various 
can compete. .
All the best, Ashok

Received on Thursday, 12 November 2009 05:12:51 UTC