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

Re: Addressing ISSUE-64 and ISSUE-65

From: Juan Sequeda <juanfederico@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 10 Aug 2011 12:43:46 -0500
Message-ID: <CAMVTWDzsg1QLQjgiwQpodQYcEdmXKVXV_0eeZzWa6-phKmyeuw@mail.gmail.com>
To: Ivan Herman <ivan.herman@gmail.com>
Cc: David McNeil <dmcneil@revelytix.com>, public-rdb2rdf-wg@w3.org
On Wed, Aug 10, 2011 at 12:40 PM, Ivan Herman <ivan.herman@gmail.com> wrote:

>
> On Aug 10, 2011, at 19:28 , David McNeil wrote:
>
> >
> > can you give me a real use-case where there is a need of multiple foreign
> keys from the same columns.
> >
> > Juan - This raises the question in my mind: is it a requirement for the
> Direct Mapping to capture all of the FK relationships? My assumption was
> that we wanted the Direct Mapping to capture all of them and would be
> considered a failure if it dropped some of them (would there be a
> deterministic way to identify which one to drop?). But from your question it
> seems that it is OK for a FK to be dropped and it is just a question of how
> common the scenario is.
>
> Yes, that question came to my mind, too. It is not sure that our goal with
> the DM is to map _all_ possible RDB-s. It may be that we should concentrate
> on that 80/20 case if the result is well manageable, with decent URI-s, etc.
> After all, we do have R2RML for the more esoteric cases...
>

+1

>
> Ivan
>
> > In that case I would say it is not very common.
> >
> > Regarding ISSUE-65, it seems useful to me that the presence of a FK is
> purely additive in terms of the triples produced. So I agree with Souri's
> points and recommendation.
> >
> > -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 Wednesday, 10 August 2011 17:44:32 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:00:26 UTC