- From: Richard Cyganiak <richard@cyganiak.de>
- Date: Thu, 2 Jun 2011 16:11:15 +0100
- To: Eric Prud'hommeaux <eric@w3.org>
- Cc: David McNeil <dmcneil@revelytix.com>, W3C RDB2RDF <public-rdb2rdf-wg@w3.org>
Eric,
On 2 Jun 2011, at 15:16, Eric Prud'hommeaux wrote:
>> ODBC and JDBC are well-defined and (somewhat) consistently implemented standards and APIs. Drivers -- and hence identifying strings -- exist for every database engine under the sun. Your new wheel is worse.
>
> hmm, I've found ODBC connection strings hilariously complex to parse, e.g. sometimes the driver name is before the '//', sometimes there is no '//':
> http://www.herongyang.com/JDBC/Summary-Connection-URL.html
The format is jdbc:{driver-name}:…
>> You presume that R2RML authors are able *and* willing to manually annotate the specific version of SQL that their queries conforms to. I find this assumption highly questionable. The users I talk to on average certainly aren't able to tell what SQL features are in SQL-92 vs SQL-08.
>
> I presume that *some* will be willing, particularly in an industrial setting.
I would be interested in hearing feedback to that effect from users in an industrial setting.
> or a language identifier
> _:someTriplesMap rr:SQLdialect <...openGIS> .
How about _:someTriplesMap <...openGIS> true.
Richard
Received on Thursday, 2 June 2011 15:11:46 UTC