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 09:53:16 -0500
Message-ID: <BANLkTi=P_tbkdB6wQwGmqNSv=Z2p3kfBhg@mail.gmail.com>
To: Ivan Herman <ivan@w3.org>
Cc: RDB2RDF WG <public-rdb2rdf-wg@w3.org>
> >
> > > 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.
>

Agreed. I was thinking the Direct Mapping was expressed in terms of R2RML,
but I see now that is not the case.

-David
Received on Tuesday, 26 April 2011 14:53:49 UTC

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