Keeping R2RML free of Direct Mapping dependency (ISSUE-25)

Today in the working group meeting we discussed "ISSUE-25: Including direct
mapping constructs in R2RML mappings"[1]. The consensus on the call seemed
to be that ISSUE-25 should be closed with the resolution that we will keep
R2RML free from dependencies on the Direct Mapping. However, we wanted to
give all of the group members a chance to comment on this before closing the
item. So, please respond if you have objections, in particular it was noted
that Souren had been advocating the approach of allowing the Direct Mapping
constructs to be implicitly included in R2RML mappings.

[1] -

Thank you.

Received on Tuesday, 19 April 2011 17:17:09 UTC