- From: ashok malhotra <ashok.malhotra@oracle.com>
- Date: Tue, 08 May 2012 16:31:41 -0700
- To: public-rdb2rdf-wg@w3.org
Yes, that's good. All the best, Ashok On 5/8/2012 4:08 PM, Richard Cyganiak wrote: > On 8 May 2012, at 23:02, ashok malhotra wrote: >> On 5/8/2012 1:45 PM, Richard Cyganiak wrote: >>> The proposal is to allow omitting the rr:column/rr:template/rr:constant if the term type is rr:BlankNode. >> I don't like the absence of something to trigger behaviour. A naive use may think that >> the absence of rr:column/rr:template/rr:constant was a bug and may be surprised by getting >> unique blanknode IDs. How about a keyword such as rr:UNIQUE to indicate that unique >> identifiers are desired. > Yeah, I was trying to get away without introducing any new vocabulary, but this made me slightly uncomfortable too. > > How about Eric's earlier proposal: > > rr:subjectMap [ > rr:termType rr:RowBlankNode; > ]; > > • If the term type is rr:BlankNode, then you have to specify how to generate the blank node identifier using rr:column/rr:template/rr:constant. (That's the status quo.) > > • If the term type is rr:RowBlankNode, then you don't specify rr:column/rr:template/rr:constant, and you get a fresh blank node for each row. (That's the new part.) > > Richard
Received on Tuesday, 8 May 2012 23:30:48 UTC