- From: Enrico Franconi <franconi@inf.unibz.it>
- Date: Fri, 3 Jun 2011 08:27:45 +0200
- To: Richard Cyganiak <richard@cyganiak.de>
- Cc: Ivan Herman <ivan@w3.org>, RDB2RDF WG <public-rdb2rdf-wg@w3.org>
On 2 Jun 2011, at 11:18, Richard Cyganiak wrote: > On 2 Jun 2011, at 09:52, Enrico Franconi wrote: >> "the user would use some rules to handle the NULL case as well": which rules? Should we ask the user to understand the semantics of NULLs in RDBs, so that he/she would write correct "rules"? > > I don't expect users to ask SPARQL queries that try to emulate SQL NULL semantics. This is a non-requirement as far as I am concerned. I'm happy that we eventually arrived at what I do believe is the real essence of the disagreement: many people don't care to "keep" the meaning of the information of the source relational data. Many people are just happy with a data structure to manipulate, without telling the users how to possibly reconstruct the original RDB meaning from the data structure. Well, I will strongly oppose that. At least, I demand that people who do care should not suffer for the choices of the group. After all, we are just discussing whether a NULL value should be absent or encoded in the translation. I don't understand why we want to make the life difficult to the ones who do care. If somebody really don't want to see the NULLs, it is always possible to filter them out in a very easy way. --e.
Received on Friday, 3 June 2011 06:28:47 UTC