> > I believe that's possible already, without translating NULLs. Where do you > see difficulties with that? > > > > Not sure if I understand, but isn't this taken care of by the rdf:type and > ID triples that are produced for Bob, and not produced for Sue? > Yes, I see that now (after email from Alexandre). For some reason I was thinking that the Direct Mapping "merges" some tables based on patterns that it sees in the schema foreign key relationships (but maybe I imagined that, I would need to review the Direct Mapping again). So that is one question to clarify. The other question is whether it is more practical to query on the presence of a NULL value in a triple rather than the absence of a triple especially in light of the goal of using SPARQL 1.0. -David
Received on Thursday, 19 May 2011 13:24:32 UTC