Re: Proposed Resolution for Issue 42


On 31 May 2011, at 19:35, Juan Sequeda wrote:
> and rdfs:range triples.

Why are they necessary for reversibility?

> 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.


I think I've been saying this to you quite a few times over the course of this WG: If you claim to be mapping the schema, then you have to map it properly.

There are SQL datatypes, nullability, multi-column primary keys, foreign key constraints, unique constraints, the works.

I'm not sure that all of this *can* even be expressed in RDFS/OWL.

And I doubt even more that it is useful.

Personally I would prefer if the direct mapping graph was not littered with OWL statements that don't enable any useful inferences.


Received on Tuesday, 31 May 2011 18:52:34 UTC