W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-rdb2rdf-wg@w3.org > April 2011

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

From: David McNeil <dmcneil@revelytix.com>
Date: Tue, 26 Apr 2011 08:51:03 -0500
Message-ID: <BANLkTi=Dk1SfQdb7PA=wgO5skGZVCONPUA@mail.gmail.com>
To: Ivan Herman <ivan@w3.org>
Cc: RDB2RDF WG <public-rdb2rdf-wg@w3.org>
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?

Received on Tuesday, 26 April 2011 13:51:31 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:00:23 UTC