Re: TC - minor question about rr:predicateObjectMap

On 5 Mar 2012, at 23:54, Boris Villazon-Terrazas wrote:
> I think you were pointing out this question/issue last telecon.
> If I understood you correctly you were asking for a TC  like [1].
> Within the R2RML mapping we have a rr:predicateObjectMap with two rr:predicateMaps and only one rr:objectMap
> 
> did I understand correctly your question/issue?
> 
> If it is not the case, we have a non-conforming R2RML TC

That TC looks good to me. The R2RML mapping is conforming, and the result is what I'd expect.

Richard




> 
> Boris
> 
> 
> [1] http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/rdb2rdf/test-cases/#R2RMLTC0008c
> 

Received on Tuesday, 6 March 2012 01:53:25 UTC