Re: Proposed Resolution for Issue 42

On Tue, 2011-05-31 at 20:53 +0100, Richard Cyganiak wrote:
> Hi Alexandre,
> On 31 May 2011, at 20:27, Alexandre Bertails wrote:
> >> 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.
> > 
> > I think that for the moment, we can agree on the current proposal
> > without speaking about any concrete solution, which will come later when
> > we're ready for it.
> No, because I'd like to know what I am agreeing to. I would likely be opposed to a solution that introduces a parliament of OWL into the direct mapping in order to work around the NULL issue.

Oh well, I hope we don't need to use OWL at all :-)

> > rdfs:domain may be enough for this issue, but we may want other information as well.
> I think we all agree that rdfs:domain is *necessary*.
> I believe that it is also *sufficient* to reconstruct the NULLs, and have seen no claims to the contrary.
> So let's go with rdfs:domain *only* as the resolution to ISSUE-42.
> More schema triples may still be added to the direct mapping later on, but that needs to be discussed, and it can't be discussed before there's a proposal on the table. So I suggest treating additional schema triples as a different and separate issue (which someone should create in the tracker).

I totally agree on the fact we can act triples later. But I just want to
point out the fact that we may have to change this solution later (for
consistency issue for example).

> PROPOSAL: Resolve ISSUE-42 by not creating triples for NULL values, and adding rdfs:domain statements to the direct mapping graph. This does not preclude adding more schema triples in a future resolution.

Because I also like to know what I am agreeing to, can I ask you to
produce a real example involving the use of rdfs:domain?


> Best,
> Richard

Received on Tuesday, 31 May 2011 20:18:53 UTC