Re: Direct Mapping

On Tue, Sep 7, 2010 at 8:15 AM, Boris Villazón-Terrazas <
boris.villazon@deri.org> wrote:

>  Hi all
>
> I've just read the whole thread of the direct mapping subject, and I
> totally agree with Richard.
> Also, as Alexander pointed out in his previous email "there are advantages
> of being able to automatically generate a default R2RML mapping from the RDB
> schema. However, this is procedural mechanism which cannot be part of the
> specification of the R2RML (declarative) language. We as a WG can publish a
> separate recommendation / standard of how to do this".
>

Wait, but this is what the direct mapping is all about, for it to be
automatic (default). I'm not saying that it is part of the language. That is
why it is going to be a different doc.

>
> Juan Sequeda wrote:
>
>
> On Mon, Sep 6, 2010 at 11:00 PM, Richard Cyganiak <richard@cyganiak.de>wrote:
>
>>
>> On 7 Sep 2010, at 04:43, Juan Sequeda wrote:
>>
>>> On Mon, Sep 6, 2010 at 10:31 PM, Richard Cyganiak <richard@cyganiak.de
>>> >wrote:
>>>
>>>> So there are at least TWO DISTINCT AUDIENCES for the direct mapping
>>>> spec:
>>>
>>>  My preference would be to normatively specify the direct mapping as a
>> direct graph. And have an informative appendix that describes an algorithm
>> for creating the canonical direct R2RML file that produces the direct graph.
>>
>>
>>
>  I wonder what the rest of the group has to say about this.
>
> I think the same as Richard.
> We can include an appendix for describing the procedure of creating the
> R2RML file for the direct graph generation.
>
> Boris
>
>