Re: relational mapping?

Jan Grant wrote:

> On Thu, 3 May 2001, Seth Russell wrote:
> Yep; I think this is what both Danny and I intimated was a "naieve"
> approach. It has the advantage of "just working"* for at least
> _producing_ RDF from an RDBMS. But it doesn't really capture any
> sematics that the RDBMS schema may be trying to describe. A row in a
> table may hold details (conceptually) about one or more resources
> (possibly just one, depending on which NF it is in). The use of a middle
> table to model many-to-many tables has multiple potential
> representations in RDF; similarly, there are potentially several
> representations of a many-to-one relationship (just using arcs, or using
> collections if that's more appropriate). To make these choices, you need
> to really be aware of what the RDBMS schema is trying to capture to make
> informed decisions about producing RDF from these.

I think that the most appropriate way to do this would be to go back to the
conceptual (ER or EER) schema and re-build the relational-RDF schema
for publishing relational data as RDF.

Another approach would require interpretation of the relational schema
using metadata information.

Nick Bassiliades

* Dr. Nick Bassiliades                                       *
*                                                            *
* Programming Languages And Software Engineering (PLASE) Lab *
* Logic Programming and Intelligent Systems (LPIS) Group     *
*                                                            *
* Dept. of Informatics, Aristotle University of Thessaloniki *
* 54006 Thessaloniki, Greece                                 *
*                                                            *
* Tel: +30-31-998418   E-mail:          *
* Fax: +30-31-998419   URL:  *

Received on Friday, 4 May 2001 05:42:26 UTC