Which option is not a method to handle naming conflicts in mapping?

The option that indicates ignoring conflicts until runtime is indeed not a method to handle naming conflicts in mapping. In data integration, it is crucial to proactively address any naming conflicts to maintain data integrity and ensure smooth operation during the mapping process.

Utilizing target-based conflict resolution allows for specific strategy application when there are duplicates, defining rules to determine which data should prevail. Creating unique identifiers helps to distinguish records uniquely, thereby eliminating confusion in data processing and preventing clashes. Parameterization allows for dynamic assignment of values, further reducing the risk of naming conflicts by adapting to varying conditions at runtime.

In contrast, ignoring conflicts until runtime can lead to surprises, unexpected failures, and potentially critical data inaccuracies, which are detrimental to any data integration process. Therefore, it is essential to implement strategies that actively address naming conflicts rather than hoping they will resolve themselves during execution.