- From: Ivan Herman <ivan@w3.org>
- Date: Tue, 26 Apr 2011 17:17:33 +0200
- To: Alexandre Bertails <bertails@w3.org>
- Cc: David McNeil <dmcneil@revelytix.com>, RDB2RDF WG <public-rdb2rdf-wg@w3.org>
On Apr 26, 2011, at 17:11 , Alexandre Bertails wrote: > On Tue, 2011-04-26 at 09:53 -0500, 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. >> >> Agreed. I was thinking the Direct Mapping was expressed in terms of >> R2RML, but I see now that is not the case. > > The Direct Mapping was never intended to be "expressed in terms of > R2RML". But I agree that there could a section about it in the spec. > Just remember this will never be the normative definition of the Direct > Mapping. And the mapping itself will be parameterized by an instance of > RDB. Agreed and agreed:-) It should be in an informative appendix of one of the two specs. Ivan > > Alexandre. > >> >> -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 15:16:33 UTC