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

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

From: Ivan Herman <ivan@w3.org>
Date: Tue, 26 Apr 2011 16:52:30 +0200
Cc: RDB2RDF WG <public-rdb2rdf-wg@w3.org>
Message-Id: <C21DDE89-0A21-4912-BE1A-7253267679F2@w3.org>
To: David McNeil <dmcneil@revelytix.com>

On Apr 26, 2011, at 16:48 , David McNeil wrote:

> 
> > 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?
> 
> 
> What I mean is to use a Direct Mapping tool to produce an R2RML mapping file for an RDB.

Yes, that is what I meant. An R2RML representation of the DM results for that particular RDB.

If we go down that route, it would be worthwhile having an appendix in either the r2rml or the dm document that gives a precise mapping of the dm to r2rml. This should not be left to implementers to be figured out separately.

Ivan


> Then edit that mapping file. For example, remove the parts that map relational table <x> and replace it with hand-crafted R2RML.
> 
> -David 


----
Ivan Herman, W3C Semantic Web Activity Lead
Home: http://www.w3.org/People/Ivan/
mobile: +31-641044153
PGP Key: http://www.ivan-herman.net/pgpkey.html
FOAF: http://www.ivan-herman.net/foaf.rdf
Received on Tuesday, 26 April 2011 14:51:30 UTC

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