- From: Juan Sequeda <juanfederico@gmail.com>
- Date: Mon, 25 Oct 2010 10:04:43 -0500
- To: ashok.malhotra@oracle.com
- Cc: public-rdb2rdf-wg@w3.org
- Message-ID: <AANLkTin22=sv-C+TCMqRXAXDz=H6U_73ZeFF7LEC1WUt@mail.gmail.com>
Ashok, Do you mean then to drop the direct mapping for everything and use only default mapping? If so, that is one vote or default mapping. Others? Juan Sequeda +1-575-SEQ-UEDA www.juansequeda.com On Mon, Oct 25, 2010 at 7:11 AM, ashok malhotra <ashok.malhotra@oracle.com>wrote: > I vote for Default mapping. I think 'default' better conveys the sense > that it is a single algorithm. > All the best, Ashok > > On 10/24/2010 4:28 PM, Juan Sequeda wrote: > > Hi Everybody > > I've seen the use of Default Mapping and Direct Mapping in several > places. Soeren also pointed this out in his comments. So, what do these > terms mean? Or are they the same? > > We need to come to a consensus asap! > > IMO, a Direct Mapping is a mapping from a RDB to RDF where tuple pk are > subjects, attributes of a table are predicates and the values are objects > (or something like this... this will be clearly defined in the direct > mapping document). A RDB2RDF system should use the direct mapping as the > default mapping, meaning, when the user does not customize a mapping and > lets the RDB2RDF system expose the RDB data automatically as RDF, it will do > it by the direct mapping. > > I'm guessing that R2RML document needs to reference the Direct Mapping > document. Can a FPWD reference a document that is not ready? I do not feel > comfortable about this. > > Juan Sequeda > +1-575-SEQ-UEDA > www.juansequeda.com > >
Received on Monday, 25 October 2010 15:05:39 UTC