- From: Richard Cyganiak <richard@cyganiak.de>
- Date: Tue, 30 Aug 2011 18:09:28 +0100
- To: Souripriya Das <souripriya.das@oracle.com>
- Cc: W3C RDB2RDF <public-rdb2rdf-wg@w3.org>
Hi Souri, > translation scheme (we need a simpler scheme for mapping: <DB value(s), RDF term>) Ok, I've seen you've made ISSUE-66: http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/rdb2rdf/track/issues/66 So, ISSUE-61 should be considered as having a dependency on ISSUE-66. http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/rdb2rdf/track/issues/61 I guess there's an action on you to come up with a proposal. Note that there's some rationale for the current design in this message: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdb2rdf-wg/2011Aug/0149.html > ISSUE-57 refinement of the note regarding the alternate proposal ISSUE-57 is still open, so there's an action on you to propose new wording. > correcting Sec 2.6 example, I just read 2.6 again, and couldn't find a problem, so need more info, either via mail or via a new issue. http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/rdb2rdf/r2rml/#example-m2m > graphMap association with POMap I guess the idea is to associate graph maps with p-o maps instead of (or in addition to) object maps? This needs discussion. Could you raise an issue and state the rationale? Best, Richard
Received on Tuesday, 30 August 2011 17:10:12 UTC