- From: Ivan Herman <ivan@w3.org>
- Date: Thu, 3 May 2012 19:11:34 +0200
- To: Michael Hausenblas <michael.hausenblas@deri.org>
- Cc: Eric Prud'hommeaux <eric@w3.org>, W3C RDB2RDF <public-rdb2rdf-wg@w3.org>
Michael, others, if my understanding is correct, the solution put forward adds a new feature to R2RML. If that is the case, we cannot make a commitment today that we would go directly to PR after the 2nd Last Call. Indeed, all implementations have to update theirs with the new feature during the LC period and we can decide on skipping a 2nd Candidate Rec only if we are sure about that. Note that, afaik, we have implementers around (Antidot) that are not in the WG, ie, they have no idea what is happening... Bottom line: Unless I completely misunderstood this, I do not have a real proposal to make here, except that a new LC publication has to be done. That is just a new Working Draft publication round.... Ivan --- Ivan Herman Tel:+31 641044153 http://www.ivan-herman.net (Written on mobile, sorry for brevity and misspellings...) On 3 May 2012, at 18:08, Michael Hausenblas <michael.hausenblas@deri.org> wrote: > >> Were we close to closing R2RML's CR? > > This was the last issue, all other have been resolved in last weeks meeting (see also my comments when I sent out the minutes [1]). Never mind, we're not extending CR but entering a second, rather short LC period. > > Ivan, can you prepare a respective PROPOSAL for next week's meeting please? > > Cheers, > Michael > > [1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdb2rdf-wg/2012May/0005.html > > -- > Dr. Michael Hausenblas, Research Fellow > DERI - Digital Enterprise Research Institute > NUIG - National University of Ireland, Galway > Ireland, Europe > Tel.: +353 91 495730 > WebID: http://sw-app.org/mic.xhtml#i > > On 3 May 2012, at 17:04, Eric Prud'hommeaux wrote: > >> * Juan Sequeda <juanfederico@gmail.com> [2012-05-03 10:50-0500] >>> Looks like we have to extend CR till >>> we have implementations for this corner case. >> >> Were we close to closing R2RML's CR? >> >> >>> Juan Sequeda >>> www.juansequeda.com >>> >>> On May 3, 2012, at 10:42 AM, Richard Cyganiak <richard@cyganiak.de> wrote: >>> >>>> On 3 May 2012, at 16:25, Eric Prud'hommeaux wrote: >>>>> presumes you can create tables, but yeah, conceptually easier query. >>>> >>>> (It looks like most databases have a proprietary method of adding the indexes that doesn't require write access to the DB.) >>>> >>>>> you can even push the symbol generation down: >>>> >>>> Right. >>>> >>>>>> The big remaining question is: How to handle this in R2RML? >>>>> >>>>> Looking for an analog to: >>>>> rr:subjectMap [ >>>>> rr:column "ROWID"; >>>>> rr:termType rr:BlankNode >>>>> ]; >>>>> I'd propose: >>>>> rr:subjectMap [ >>>>> rr:termType rr:RowBlankNode >>>>> ]; >>>> >>>> That's an option. Even keeping rr:BlankNode would work — the absence of an rr:column/rr:template/rr:constant might signal that a fresh blank node must be allocated for each row. >>>> >>>>> Does that complicate things beyond how much a cardinality requirement necessarily complicates things? >>>> >>>> Well, the spec only needs to define the graph generated by the mapping, so in terms of specification it would be a simple enough change. >>>> >>>> The implications for implementers are quite significant though. It's a new feature, the implementation costs are not trivial, no existing implementation does this (AFAIK), so there's a certain amount of R&D required to show that it's implementable. >>>> >>>> Best, >>>> Richard >> >> -- >> -ericP >> >
Received on Thursday, 3 May 2012 17:11:56 UTC