Re: ISSUE-66: Translation Scheme as proposed seems too complicated for the simple task of mapping <DB value(s), RDF term>

On 30 Aug 2011, at 18:20, David McNeil wrote:
> I would like to see the 1:N mapping case simplified to something like:
> <> a skos:Concept;
>      skos:inScheme <>;
>      skos:notation 1;
>      skos:notation 2.

That's already possible. I changed this in response to your earlier review of the translationScheme section.

I take it that you mean to propose to drop the use of SKOS mapping properties?

This would lead to almost no simplification in the spec or in implementations. It would simply mean dropping the innermost #3 item in the algorithm [1]. (Plus changing the example, and tweaking the section intro text and the way duplicate notations are detected.)



Received on Tuesday, 30 August 2011 17:37:36 UTC