- From: Richard Cyganiak <richard@cyganiak.de>
- Date: Tue, 10 May 2011 21:24:32 +0100
- To: David McNeil <dmcneil@revelytix.com>
- Cc: RDB2RDF WG <public-rdb2rdf-wg@w3.org>
On 10 May 2011, at 20:46, David McNeil wrote:
> How about:
>
> [] rr:parentTriplesMap <#TriplesMap1>;
> rr:joinCondition [ rr:child "col1";
> rr:parent "col1" ];
> rr:joinCondition [ rr:child "col2";
> rr:parent "col2" ];
>
> Slightly more verbose, but it keeps the two columns that are being checked closer to each other (i.e. the child column is more explicitly paired up with its parent column).
As you know, I'll always vote for the less verbose option ;-)
I acknowledge that this is the proper way of modeling it in RDF.
> Also, it seems like lists end up causing pain in RDF.
Turtle has good syntax for lists, and implementing R2RML doesn't really require any clever RDF-level processing of the mapping file, so in our case the pain should be manageable.
If you're violently opposed to lists, then how about the last option I mentioned:
[] rr:parentTriplesMap <#TriplesMap1>;
rr:join "col1,col1", "col2,col2";
This keeps the columns that are being checked *very* close to each other ;-)
Best
Richard
Received on Tuesday, 10 May 2011 20:25:01 UTC