Re: Proposed Resolution for Issue 42

and rdfs:range triples.

Would it be necessary to have rdfs:Class/owl:Class and
rdf:Property/owl:ObjectProperty - owl:DatatypeProperty ? I assume no,
because this can be inferred. But adding them wouldn't be a harm (right?).
If so, we are also specifying a direct mapping of the relational schema to
RDFS/OWL.


Juan Sequeda
+1-575-SEQ-UEDA
www.juansequeda.com


On Tue, May 31, 2011 at 1:29 PM, Richard Cyganiak <richard@cyganiak.de>wrote:

> On 31 May 2011, at 19:02, ashok malhotra wrote:
> > We discussed issue 42 on the telcon today but did not resolve it at
> neither Richard
> > nor Enrico was on the call.
> >
> > The WG seemed inclined to accept the proposal from Souri:
> > -- maintain data equivalence (allowing converting either way, without
> loss of info) => this can be done by DM 1) always generating schema triples
> and 2) skipping generation of triples for NULL values
>
> I would agree to a proposal that maintains reversibility of the mapping by
> adding rdfs:domain triples to the properties, and does not generate triples
> for NULL values.
>
> Best,
> Richard
>
>
> >
> > We also discussed whether we needed to prove that a SPARQL query could be
> generated on the
> > RDF that was equivalent to a SQL query on the Relational data.  The
> feeling was that, if there was no
> > loss of information, then there would exist a SPARQL query that was
> equivalent to the SQL query.
> > Alexandre pointed us to some work he had done on this.  See minutes.
> http://www.w3.org/2011/05/31-rdb2rdf-minutes.html
> >
> > Richard, Enrico please reply to this mail and let the WG know if you can
> live with this proposal.
> > We should close this issue next Tuesday.
> > --
> > All the best, Ashok
> >
>
>
>