Re: Addressing ISSUE-64 and ISSUE-65

So it looks like have the following (conflicting) proposals

PROPOSAL: Leave the DM document as-is because it already addresses ISSUE-64
and ISSUE-65

PROPOSAL: The DM will not address ISSUE-64 because it is a corner case.

PROPOSAL: Create IRIs of the form <xxx/Table#column> for columns that are
foreign keys. "xxx" will be some string that identifies that it is a foreign
ken (i.e ref) and also create literal triples for the foreign key columns. This
would address ISSUE-65 because we would have different IRIs for foreign key
properties and literal properties.

PROPOSAL: For multi-column foreign keys, create IRIs of the form <

Wrt using relative IRIs instead of prefixes, do we actually need to address
this in the document? Isn't this just up to the user? If somebody wants to
write all the prefixes, it's up to them. Maybe we could just keep all the
examples using relative IRIs and say nothing about this.

Proposal 1) is conflicting with 2-4)

Juan Sequeda

On Tue, Aug 23, 2011 at 9:45 AM, Richard Cyganiak <>wrote:

> On 23 Aug 2011, at 14:17, Eric Prud'hommeaux wrote:
> > I believe I've examined exactly this proposal in a message earlier in
> this thread <>:
> …
> > I've not heard what the motivation is to make the common case queries and
> rules harder to write. I don't think we should complicate users' lives
> without some motivation beyond an aesthetic objection to exceptions.
> I've responded in detail here:
> I'll quote the conclusion, but please go read the whole thing.
> >> You're optimizing for the “hello, world” case at the expense of
> real-world usability. You're pretending that funky characters in identifiers
> are a rare corner case that doesn't really happen and that you don't need to
> worry about. I'm sorry but that doesn't work. Believe me, I've tried that
> approach in D2RQ and it doesn't work. Our second-most frequent class of bugs
> over the years has been the result of me assuming, “oh no one would ever be
> so stupid to put *that* character into a column name, right?”
> Best,
> Richard

Received on Tuesday, 23 August 2011 15:50:12 UTC