ISSUE-28: Clarify whether blank nodes are equivalent based on their identifier

equivalent blank nodes

Clarify whether blank nodes are equivalent based on their identifier

State:

CLOSED

Product:

R2RML

Raised by:

David McNeil

Opened on:

2011-03-07

Description:

Clarify in the spec whether the blank nodes generated via different mappings and different logical rows, but in the same graph are to be considered equivalent based on having the same blank node identifier. Within the context of a single rr:graph do the following refer to the same blank node?

* in TriplesMap1, an rr:subject property whose value is a blank node with an identifier of "Department10"

* in TriplesMap2, an rr:template property (with an associated rr:termtype="BlankNode") that produces the value "Department10"

* in TriplesMap3, an rr:column property (with an associated rr:termtype="BlankNode") that points to a column from a SQLQuery that produces the value "Department10"

* in TriplesMap3, another logical row in the SQLQuery that produces the value of "Department10"

Related Actions Items:

No related actions

Related emails:

1. Minutes of 2011-07-12 telecon (from michael.hausenblas@deri.org on 2011-07-12)
2. Re: Agenda for July 12 Telcon (from michael.hausenblas@deri.org on 2011-07-12)
3. Re: Agenda for July 12 Telcon (from juanfederico@gmail.com on 2011-07-12)
4. Re: Agenda for July 12 Telcon (from privera.salas@gmail.com on 2011-07-12)
5. Re: Agenda for July 12 Telcon (from marcelo.arenas1@gmail.com on 2011-07-12)
6. Agenda for July 12 Telcon (from ashok.malhotra@oracle.com on 2011-07-09)
7. Re: Agenda for June 28 Telcon (Today) (from richard@cyganiak.de on 2011-06-28)
8. Re: Housekeeping on open/raised issues, with PROPOSAL (from dmcneil@revelytix.com on 2011-06-21)
9. Housekeeping on open/raised issues, with PROPOSAL (from richard@cyganiak.de on 2011-06-21)
10. Re: Reviewing some issues (from dmcneil@revelytix.com on 2011-05-31)
11. Reviewing some issues (from richard@cyganiak.de on 2011-05-30)
12. Re: ISSUE-28 (equivalent blank nodes): Clarify whether blank nodes are equivalent based on their identifier [R2RML] (from eric@w3.org on 2011-03-22)
13. Re: ISSUE-28 (equivalent blank nodes): Clarify whether blank nodes are equivalent based on their identifier [R2RML] (from richard@cyganiak.de on 2011-03-22)
14. Re: ISSUE-28 (equivalent blank nodes): Clarify whether blank nodes are equivalent based on their identifier [R2RML] (from dmcneil@revelytix.com on 2011-03-21)
15. Re: R2RML: publishing the second draft (from bvillazon@fi.upm.es on 2011-03-17)
16. Re: R2RML: publishing the second draft (from me@alexdeleon.name on 2011-03-16)
17. Re: R2RML: publishing the second draft (from rscanlon@revelytix.com on 2011-03-15)
18. Re: R2RML: publishing the second draft (from bvillazon@fi.upm.es on 2011-03-15)
19. Re: R2RML: publishing the second draft (from rscanlon@revelytix.com on 2011-03-15)
20. Re: R2RML: publishing the second draft (from me@alexdeleon.name on 2011-03-15)
21. Re: R2RML: publishing the second draft (from bvillazon@fi.upm.es on 2011-03-15)
22. Test cases to check - including TC for ISSUE-28 (from bvillazon@fi.upm.es on 2011-03-15)
23. Re: ISSUE-28 (equivalent blank nodes): Clarify whether blank nodes are equivalent based on their identifier [R2RML] (from me@alexdeleon.name on 2011-03-14)
24. R2RML: publishing the second draft (from souripriya.das@oracle.com on 2011-03-14)
25. ISSUE-28 (equivalent blank nodes): Clarify whether blank nodes are equivalent based on their identifier [R2RML] (from sysbot+tracker@w3.org on 2011-03-07)

Related notes:

Display change log