Re: Q: ISSUE-41 bNode semantics

* David McNeil <dmcneil@revelytix.com> [2011-05-18 08:37-0500]
> > 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.

+1


> -David

-- 
-ericP

Received on Wednesday, 18 May 2011 13:57:03 UTC