- From: Ted Thibodeau Jr <tthibodeau@openlinksw.com>
- Date: Tue, 19 Jul 2011 11:57:52 -0400
- To: RDB2RDF Working Group WG <public-rdb2rdf-wg@w3.org>
On Jul 12, 2011, at 02:26 PM, Richard Cyganiak wrote:
> Proposal: just rename rr:tableOwner to rr:tableSchema
> Objection: A fully qualified table name is [[Catalog.]Schema.]Table, and there is no case for separating [Catalog.]Schema from Table
I won't block on this basis, but there *is* a case for this
separation, and in fact it supports having just these two
levels of identifier (i.e., rr:tableSchema and rr:tableName
with no distinct rr:tableCatalog).
The latest EBNF I have to hand is SQL-92, but I believe these
are still valid --
<schema name> ::= [ <catalog name> <period> ] <unqualified
schema name>
<catalog name> ::= <identifier>
<unqualified schema name> ::= <identifier>
<qualified local table name> ::= <qualified identifier>
<local table name> ::= <qualified identifier>
<qualified identifier> ::= <identifier>
> So my proposal is still:
>
> [[
> PROPOSAL: To resolve ISSUE-34, drop rr:tableOwner, and instead state that rr:tableName MAY be qualified to include a schema name and a catalog name
> ]]
Acceptable. +0.
Be seeing you,
Ted
--
A: Yes. http://www.guckes.net/faq/attribution.html
| Q: Are you sure?
| | A: Because it reverses the logical flow of conversation.
| | | Q: Why is top posting frowned upon?
Ted Thibodeau, Jr. // voice +1-781-273-0900 x32
Evangelism & Support // mailto:tthibodeau@openlinksw.com
// http://twitter.com/TallTed
OpenLink Software, Inc. // http://www.openlinksw.com/
10 Burlington Mall Road, Suite 265, Burlington MA 01803
http://www.openlinksw.com/weblogs/uda/
OpenLink Blogs http://www.openlinksw.com/weblogs/virtuoso/
http://www.openlinksw.com/blog/~kidehen/
Universal Data Access and Virtual Database Technology Providers
Received on Tuesday, 19 July 2011 15:58:36 UTC