Re: Default Mapping vs Direct Mapping


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.


Juan Sequeda

On Mon, Oct 25, 2010 at 7:11 AM, ashok malhotra

>  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

Received on Monday, 25 October 2010 15:05:39 UTC