- From: Eric Prud'hommeaux <eric@w3.org>
- Date: Mon, 18 Oct 2010 16:53:31 -0400
- To: Richard Cyganiak <richard@cyganiak.de>
- Cc: Alexandre Bertails <bertails@w3.org>, Paul Tyson <phtyson@sbcglobal.net>, ashok.malhotra@oracle.com, Michael Hausenblas <michael.hausenblas@deri.org>, RDB2RDF WG <public-rdb2rdf-wg@w3.org>
* Richard Cyganiak <richard@cyganiak.de> [2010-10-18 20:19+0100]
> On 18 Oct 2010, at 19:22, Eric Prud'hommeaux wrote:
> >Richard Cyganiac has use cases
> >which require identifiers for the tables and attributes. A minimal
> >relational schema description like:
> >[[
> ><http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/rdb2rdf/r2rml/DBex/People#header>
> > rdfs:member ex:People.ID .
> >]] or [[
> > <http://foo.example/DB/People#_> rdfs:member People:ID .
> >]]
> >should let the community hang whatever assertions they'd need on these
> >identifiers. Richard, would that meet your needs?
>
> I'd like to have some way of distinguishing tables and columns via
> SPARQL.
I guess a weak predicate isn't really sufficient. How about either a
stronger predicate:
<http://foo.example/DB/People#_> rdfdb:hasAttribute People:ID .
or some type annotations:
<http://foo.example/DB/People#_> a rdfdb:Relation ;
rdfs:member People:ID .
People:ID a rdfdb:RelationAttribute .
My preference is the former, possibly with some domain and range
assertions for rdfdb:hasAttribute, which would look like:
rdfdb:hasAttribute rdfs:domain rdfdb:Relation ;
rdfs:range rdfdb:RelationAttribute .
Does that meet your requirements? Is it attractive enough?
> Richard
--
-ericP
Received on Monday, 18 October 2010 20:54:07 UTC