- From: Richard Cyganiak <richard@cyganiak.de>
- Date: Wed, 21 Jul 2010 16:53:49 +0100
- To: Harry Halpin <hhalpin@w3.org>
- Cc: "Marcelo Arenas" <marcelo.arenas1@gmail.com>, public-rdb2rdf-wg@w3.org
Harry, On 19 Jul 2010, at 15:42, Harry Halpin wrote: >> The fragment of Datalog that we need to use for the mapping language >> has a simple syntax and a semantics that can be easily understood, so >> it is a good alternative. >> ... > The other topic would be to see if this SQL fragment would be a good > starting point for the SQL-based approach as well. I don't understand the purpose of defining a SQL fragment for the SQL- based approach as part of this WG's work. I think there is a clear desire to allow full SQL in a compliant implementation of the SQL-based approach. This is at least what I gather from Souri's and Orri's comments. I can not remember anyone making an argument that only a restricted SQL fragment should be allowed in the SQL-based approach. Can you please explain, or point me to the discussion that motivates the need for restrictions in the allowable SQL in the SQL-based approach? Best, Richard
Received on Wednesday, 21 July 2010 15:54:25 UTC