- From: Daniel Miranker <miranker@cs.utexas.edu>
- Date: Sun, 18 Jul 2010 09:42:42 -0500
- To: "Harry Halpin" <hhalpin@w3.org>
- Cc: public-rdb2rdf-wg@w3.org
On Jul 18, 2010, at 8:26 AM, Harry Halpin wrote: > 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 not unique to Eric's mapping. I just don't know how to explain this; certainly not at distance. > > 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 14:43:19 UTC