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

On Tue, Apr 26, 2011 at 8:35 AM, Ivan Herman <ivan@w3.org> wrote:

>
> On Apr 26, 2011, at 15:27 , David McNeil wrote:
>
> > On Tue, Apr 26, 2011 at 3:25 AM, Ivan Herman <ivan@w3.org> wrote:
> > If the group decides not to make a reference to the Direct Mapping in in
> R2RML, then we still have to define what happens to those parts of the table
> that a specific R2RML file does not cover. In other words, we would have to
> define a default behaviour.
> >
> > Ivan - Thanks for the response. The default behavior (as you described
> later in your message) would be to not map those entities to RDF. It is my
> understanding that this is what the current R2RML spec requires but I don't
> think this is explicitly stated.
>
> It is certainly not. I remember asking this question at some of my earlier
> reviews, and that was never properly discussed or decided as far as I
> remember (but my memory is failing with age...)
>
>
 Ivan - As you read the R2RML spec, does it state or imply that entities not
mapped by the R2RML mapping should be included in the output triples?

Thanks.
-David