ISSUE-75: Reconsider rr:tableName syntactic sugar
tableName-sugar
Reconsider rr:tableName syntactic sugar
- State:
- CLOSED
- Product:
- R2RML
- Raised by:
- Richard Cyganiak
- Opened on:
- 2011-11-07
- Description:
- This is part of David's LC feedback, and it was also debated at the 2nd F2F.
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdb2rdf-comments/2011Oct/0022.html
Several questions were raised regarding the syntactic sugar that allows rr:tableName, rr:sqlQuery and rr:sqlVersion to be used not just on a logical table resource but also directly on a triples map.
1. Should we have this feature at all?
2. Should it use different property names (e.g., rr:logicalTableName and rr:logicalTable=>rr:name)?
3. Should it apply just to rr:tableName, or also to rr:sqlQuery and rr:sqlVersion?
4. The handling of this sugar in the B.2 table is non-obvious (see ISSUE-74) - Related Actions Items:
- No related actions
- Related emails:
- Diff of post-LC R2RML changes (from richard@cyganiak.de on 2011-12-13)
- Re: RDB2RDF WG agenda for 2011-12-13 meeting 1700 UTC (from marcelo.arenas1@gmail.com on 2011-12-13)
- Re: RDB2RDF WG agenda for 2011-12-13 meeting 1700 UTC (from unbehauen@informatik.uni-leipzig.de on 2011-12-13)
- Re: RDB2RDF WG agenda for 2011-12-13 meeting 1700 UTC (from bvillazon@fi.upm.es on 2011-12-13)
- RDB2RDF WG agenda for 2011-12-13 meeting 1700 UTC (from michael.hausenblas@deri.org on 2011-12-13)
- Re: tableName syntactic sugar (ISSUE-75) (from richard@cyganiak.de on 2011-12-12)
- tableName syntactic sugar (ISSUE-75) (from dmcneil@revelytix.com on 2011-12-10)
- Re: What issue does Revelytix have with the syntactic sugar for rr:tableName? (from ashok.malhotra@oracle.com on 2011-12-06)
- Re: What issue does Revelytix have with the syntactic sugar for rr:tableName? (from dmcneil@revelytix.com on 2011-12-06)
- Re: What issue does Revelytix have with the syntactic sugar for rr:tableName? (from juanfederico@gmail.com on 2011-12-06)
- Re: What issue does Revelytix have with the syntactic sugar for rr:tableName? (from dmcneil@revelytix.com on 2011-12-06)
- Re: What issue does Revelytix have with the syntactic sugar for rr:tableName? (from richard@cyganiak.de on 2011-12-06)
- Re: What issue does Revelytix have with the syntactic sugar for rr:tableName? (from dmcneil@revelytix.com on 2011-12-06)
- What issue does Revelytix have with the syntactic sugar for rr:tableName? (from richard@cyganiak.de on 2011-12-06)
- Re: RDB2RDF WG agenda for 2011-11-29 meeting 1700 UTC (from bvillazon@fi.upm.es on 2011-11-29)
- Re: RDB2RDF WG agenda for 2011-11-29 meeting 1700 UTC (from SOURIPRIYA.DAS@oracle.com on 2011-11-29)
- RDB2RDF WG agenda for 2011-11-29 meeting 1700 UTC (from michael.hausenblas@deri.org on 2011-11-29)
- Status update on LC comments and post-LC changes to R2RML (from richard@cyganiak.de on 2011-11-07)
- ISSUE-75 (tableName-sugar): Reconsider rr:tableName syntactic sugar [R2RML] (from sysbot+tracker@w3.org on 2011-11-07)
Related notes:
Resolved on the Dec 13 telcon as suggested by David McNeill below:
"Resolve ISSUE-75 by removing the tableName syntactic sugar and simplifying the R2RML schema documentation and property table to reflect this."
See minutes http://www.w3.org/2011/12/13-RDB2RDF-minutes.html
Resolution was to drop the syntactic sugar:
[[
RESOLUTION: Resolve ISSUE-75 by removing the tableName syntactic sugar and simplifying the R2RML schema documentation and property table to reflect this.
]]
http://www.w3.org/2011/12/13-RDB2RDF-minutes.html#item04
This is implemented in r1.180.
Closed as per discussion in http://www.w3.org/2011/12/20-RDB2RDF-minutes.html#item05
Michael Hausenblas, 20 Dec 2011, 17:49:09Display change log
