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

We have uploaded a new version ( revision: 1.147) with further 
simplification (based on the fact that the RDF term that is the value of 
rr:term is always an rr:constant).

    * rr:term (range is RDF terms)

Thanks,
- Souri/Seema

Souripriya Das wrote:
> We have uploaded a new version (revision: 1.146) containing the same 
> examples implemented using a new translation scheme that
>
>     * is much simpler (does not use SKOS)
>     * allows DB values to map to any RDF term (IRIs and literals)
>
> The new scheme uses the following new R2RML terms:
>
>     * rr:valueMap (range is class rr:ValueMap)
>     * rr:value (range is xsd:string, really just plain literal)
>     * rr:term (range is Term Map)
>
> We have not patched the text around it yet. Also, we can further 
> simplify the mapping via use of some syntactic sugar. We'll do these 
> in a subsequent version.
>
> Thanks,
> Seema & Souri.
>
> David McNeil wrote:
>>
>>
>> On Tue, Aug 30, 2011 at 12:37 PM, Richard Cyganiak 
>> <richard@cyganiak.de <mailto:richard@cyganiak.de>> wrote:
>>
>>     I take it that you mean to propose to drop the use of SKOS
>>     mapping properties?
>>
>>
>> Yes.
>>  
>>
>>     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.)
>>
>>
>> This would simplify the spec, implementations, and the syntax for 
>> doing 1:N mappings.
>>
>> What is the argument for keeping the SKOS mapping properties?
>>
>> -David