W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-rdb2rdf-wg@w3.org > May 2010

feedback on the current Use case & Requirements for RDB2RDF...

From: Ezzat, Ahmed <Ahmed.Ezzat@hp.com>
Date: Sun, 9 May 2010 05:26:13 +0000
To: "public-rdb2rdf-wg@w3.org" <public-rdb2rdf-wg@w3.org>
Message-ID: <3B7AE9BA67C72B4891EF21842246A21C886D3B38E8@GVW1097EXB.americas.hpqcorp.net>


Thanks for putting the effort in generating this document.  Below is my feedback:

1.      The use case section of the document looks fine.

2.      The requirement section (3) needs work.  Below are some comments:
*       New uncommon terminologies used which makes it difficult to read: putative, isomorphic, etc. Is isomorphic mapping is a requirement in our R2RML?  People use today local + domain mapping and it works (uni-direction)?  Is isomorphic requirements comes from future looking and expect the same mapping to be bi-directional (read/write to the DBMS) and hence isomorphic mapping makes sense?  We need to discuss this one.
*       I thought a simple diagram like option-2 and option-3 in the diagram Juan sent out earlier seems reasonable to add.  P.S. option-1 is a special case of option-3.
*       In the relevant community people use local and domain ontology; why we are not using these terms to make it easier for readers?
*       Why we are using graphs and labels terms vs RDF tuples and identifiers terms?
*       Section 3.1.4, I am not clear what we are trying to say regarding database connection?  RDBMS has its own notion and I suspect in SPARQL there is well defined notion of end point.  Is the mapping language is involved in mapping RDBMS connections?
*       Section 3.1.5 (MicroParsing): I assume the editor is referring to using RDBMS UDF for transformation processing.  This seems an implementation detail and should not be included in mapping language specification or requirement?
*       Section 3.1.6 (TableParsing): I am not clear on this one - did it mean table mapped UDF? It looks like implementation detail and should not be part of mapping language requirements?
*       Section 3.1.7 (NamedGraph): I am not clear? Do we mean a query can return multiple graphs similar t JDBC returning multiple result sets?  Needs clarification, but look this section after clarification needs to move to Section 3.2 as non-core requirements.

3.      I suggest replacing current hybrid list of editors and authors with two lists:
*       Authors: this should refer to all RDB2RDF group members listed in alphabetic order
*       Editors: Eric and Michael

4.      Finally, in few hours I am traveling in a  business trip and I will be back to the Bay Area late Wed. evening. I will miss this Tuesday meeting (regrets).  If Eric or Michale can handle this session - thanks.  I suggest the team to discuss input from all including the above points.  Hope Editors would capture/address the above issues and others, and generate a new version for final review.  Let us not rush and go out week or so earlier.

I will be very busy in this trip and will not be able to respond to emails next week at least a day or so after I come back.


Ahmed K. Ezzat, Ph.D.
HP Fellow, Strategic Innovation Architecture Manager,
Business Intelligence Software Division
Hewlett-Packard Corporation
11000 Wolf Road, Bldg 42 Upper, MS 4502, Cupertino, CA 95014-0691
Office:      Email: Ahmed.Ezzat@hp.com<mailto:Ahmed.Ezzat@hp.com> Off: 408-447-6380  Fax: 1408796-5427
Personal: Email: AhmedEzzat@aol.com<mailto:AhmedEzzat@aol.com> Tel: 408-253-5062  Fax:  408-253-6271

Bitmap Image 1.jpg
(image/jpeg attachment: Bitmap_Image_1.jpg)

Received on Sunday, 9 May 2010 05:31:22 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:00:20 UTC