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

On Apr 26, 2011, at 15:51 , David McNeil wrote:

> On Tue, Apr 26, 2011 at 8:35 AM, Ivan Herman <> wrote:
> On Apr 26, 2011, at 15:27 , David McNeil wrote:
> > On Tue, Apr 26, 2011 at 3:25 AM, Ivan Herman <> 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?

Well... it is silent about it, or at least I have not found anything to the contrary. Which is not good because it leads to issues like this one:-)


> Thanks.
> -David

Ivan Herman, W3C Semantic Web Activity Lead
mobile: +31-641044153
PGP Key:

Received on Tuesday, 26 April 2011 14:43:47 UTC