Re: Q: ISSUE-41 bNode semantics from David McNeil on 2011-05-18 (public-rdb2rdf-wg@w3.org from May 2011)

From: David McNeil <dmcneil@revelytix.com>
Date: Wed, 18 May 2011 08:37:02 -0500
To: Michael Hausenblas <michael.hausenblas@deri.org>
Cc: Enrico Franconi <franconi@inf.unibz.it>, Richard Cyganiak <richard@cyganiak.de>, Ivan Herman <ivan@w3.org>, Pat Hayes <phayes@ihmc.us>, W3C RDB2RDF <public-rdb2rdf-wg@w3.org>
Message-ID: <BANLkTi=+2pv03-7dBkb2TvzgBVwJDmEtpA@mail.gmail.com>

> I'm all for applying Okkam's razor here. Let's not try to boil the ocean
> for now but create a solution that 1. solves the problem at hand, and 2.
> doesn't bite us in the back when we want to go for a future version of
> SPARQL or a newer version of SQL, FWIW.
>

I agree with that and I am on board with having R2RML 1.0 drop the triples
with NULLs and allow users to do something different via a SQLQuery.

-David

Received on Wednesday, 18 May 2011 13:37:29 UTC