Re: RDB2RDF: a picture is worth a thousand words

* Juan Sequeda <juanfederico@gmail.com> [2010-05-09 23:06-0500]
> Hi Lee
> 
> I updated the options and they can be found here [1]
> 
> [1] http://userweb.cs.utexas.edu/~jsequeda/rdb2rdf/
> 
> I'll go through your comments and then add some more in another email

I've provisionally added these, and some explanatory text around them,
but would like RDB2RDF review.

> On Tue, May 4, 2010 at 11:11 AM, Lee Feigenbaum <lee@thefigtrees.net> wrote:
> 
> > I don't understand a couple of things in the diagram.
> >
> > In Option 1, presumably "user specified name substitution" could be far
> > more than just name substitution? It could be transformational (via, e.g.
> > SPARQL queries or RIF rule sets or what not) to reach the end state
> > ontology?
> >
> 
> Are you suggesting that the local ontology be transformed by the user with
> the mapping language? Given the direct mapping and the local ontology, you
> would like to change the ontology and therefore also changing the mapping?
> If so, are these changes done with our mapping language or with SPARQL
> queries/ RIF/etc?
> 
> Option 1 is Eric's Isomorphic case and what I'm calling Direct Mapping. The
> objective is that the RDF graph is basically equal to the relational schema
> (a binary relation becomes a property). So that is why I'm showing only a
> User Specified 1:1 name substitution. If there is a change to the graph,
> then it is not not isomorphic-direct.
> 
> With Option 1, it is straightforward to automatically do the direct mapping,
> therefore the labels are generated automatically. Hence the need to do the
> 1:1 name substitution.
> 
> 
> 
> >
> > In Option 1, are we saying that the optional stuff on the RHS would be left
> > unspecified by this group?
> >
> 
> No. Optional if a user uses an automatic method and decides to leave the
> labels with the automatic ones generated.
> 
> >
> > In Option 2, why are we starting with "Transform" rather than "Relational
> > Schema"?
> >
> >
> This was a typo
> 
> > In Option 2, what does the arrow going from "Domain Ontology" up to the
> > "transform / non-isomorphic" arrow represent?
> >
> 
> this was a bad design decision. In the new Option 2, I show the relational
> database and how it should be mapped to a domain ontology and how the RDF
> graph should look.
> 
> 
> >
> > Am I correct in understanding that Option 1 is a degenerate case of Option
> > 2 in which the transform is obvious and isomorphic and in which "Ontology"
> > ends up simply being the local/putative ontology?
> >
> 
> I'm not sure what you mean here, but hopefully with the new images, it can
> answer your questions.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> >
> >
> > On 5/4/2010 11:55 AM, Juan Sequeda wrote:
> >
> >> We would like to share this and see if we are all on the same page
> >>
> >>
> >> http://docs.google.com/drawings/pub?id=1de31u5wBUheygJTXbxXE7e7H7QI_is9hEXi5dOO5knE&w=960&h=720
> >> <
> >> http://docs.google.com/drawings/pub?id=1de31u5wBUheygJTXbxXE7e7H7QI_is9hEXi5dOO5knE&w=960&h=720
> >> >
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> Juan Sequeda
> >> +1-575-SEQ-UEDA
> >> www.juansequeda.com <http://www.juansequeda.com>
> >>
> >

-- 
-ericP

Received on Tuesday, 11 May 2010 03:03:47 UTC