- From: Harry Halpin <hhalpin@w3.org>
- Date: Sun, 18 Jul 2010 14:26:40 +0100 (BST)
- To: public-rdb2rdf-wg@w3.org
While I enjoyed the talk last week, I was wondering about the relationship
between Eric's proposed direct mapping [1] and the rules put forward last
week by Marcelo [2]. This question goes to both, and the entire working
group.
One of the advantages of Eric's default mapping mechanism [1] is that it
allows relational data to be expressed in RDF without the author of the
mapping knowing *any* rules or having any ontology that he or she wants to
map their relational data to.
This is one of the requirements of our charter, although of course we
want mappings to other vocabularies to be possible. Remember, this can be
thought of as a two-step process, where the first step is a default
mapping, and then later mappigs (via Datalog rules, RIF, SQL or whatever)
could then transform
Could we take the rules given earlier [2] and then use these to produce
the same effects as Eric's direct mapping proposal? Could someone specify
this in detail?
Then the default mapping could be seen as a certain default application of
rules, an application that *can* be changed.
cheers,
harry
[1] http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/rdb2rdf/directGraph/
[2]http://web.ing.puc.cl/~marenas/W3C/mapping_language.txt
Received on Sunday, 18 July 2010 13:26:42 UTC