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

On Apr 26, 2011, at 16:08 , David McNeil wrote:

> I see at least two usage scenarios:
> 1) Just take an RDB and make its contents accessible as RDF. In my opinion the Direct Mapping satisfies this need. It is not necessary to tie R2RML to the Direct Mapping to achieve this. (This does not address the case of mapping a _changing_ RDB schema to RDF, but from my perspective that seems like a distant edge case that we do not need to address directly in the 1.0 version of the specs.)
> 2) Craft an R2RML mapping to expose a view of an RDB as RDF. This could be targeting a pre-defined domain ontology or crafting a domain ontology as part of the mapping exercise. In either case, I think the R2RML mapper needs explicit control over which RDB entities are exposed.
> If the user wants a hybrid of these two models then they can generate the Direct Mapping for an RDB and then replace parts of it with a hand-crafted R2RML mapping.

I am not sure I understand that one. You mean generate an R2RML that would correspond to a Direct Mapping?


> -David

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

Received on Tuesday, 26 April 2011 14:44:43 UTC