Re: Requirements: tooling & named graphs

Hi everyone

> ...and a half/ Update
> I realize that updating the relational database is beyond the scope of our charter. That said, we would like to consider the potential extensibility of the mapping approach chosen to handle (some cases of) writing data back to a relational schema. (Either via SPARQL Update or via triple/quad removes & adds.

We are currently working on an RDB-RDF mapping approach called OntoAccess that also supports data updates.
From our experiences, the requirement of data updates should already be considered in the design of a mapping language (ML). If the ML is too expressive (e.g. SQL) we run into the classical view update problem where we can define mappings that will not be updateable. If all mappings should be updateable, the ML must be restricted compared to a full query language such as SQL.
In OntoAccess, we choose to start with a simple and somewhat limited ML and build a first prototype based on it. This work was published at an EDBT Workshop this year (
On you can also find links to additional relevant publications. 

Best regards,


| Matthias Hert, MSc
| Research Assistant, Doctoral Student
| Department of Informatics
| University of Zurich
| Web:
| Mail:

Received on Tuesday, 16 March 2010 15:43:11 UTC