- From: Eric Prud'hommeaux <eric@w3.org>
- Date: Mon, 10 May 2010 05:09:00 -0400
- To: Juan Sequeda <juanfederico@gmail.com>
- Cc: public-rdb2rdf-wg@w3.org
* Juan Sequeda <juanfederico@gmail.com> [2010-05-09 23:42-0500] > Hi all > > Here are my comments ... > - I don't think that we should show any SQL, as part of UC1. This will > through people off and start thinking how the SQL was produced and why it > was produced that way. That is not the intention of this document. I suggest > to eliminate any SQL that is shown ... > We don't need Section 3.3, do we? I understood from an earlier telecon that having one example query that demonstrated the ability of R2RML to create sound and efficient SQL views had consensus, so long as it was clearly marked as an example. I expect that most folks in the WG (as well as our users) are interested in a language which can map SPARQL queries to SQL and that we should show demonstrate that intention. -- -ericP
Received on Monday, 10 May 2010 09:09:39 UTC