Re: Images of RDB2RDF options updated

*sighs*

Here we go 'round again...


On May 14, 2010, at 01:35 AM, Ezzat, Ahmed wrote:
> It sounds like the three options images are the same image?
>  
> I missed the last meeting and what was discussed.  

May I suggest reviewing the minutes?  They are imperfect as
always, but they do cover things reasonably well.

   http://www.w3.org/2010/05/11-rdb2rdf-minutes.html


> In your list, Option-1 is a special case of Option-2;
> I questions its value but we can leave it as a special 
> case of Option-2 in your current list.

Option #1 is *NOT* a "special case" of #2, unless we all agree
that #3 is also -- in which case we should eliminate both #1 
and #3, and massively rewrite the document again.

Option #2 is a progression from and embellishment of #1.

As revised --

Option #1 is the most basic option -- just express my RDB Schema
as a local/pro-forma/putative RDF Ontology.

Option #2 is the next complexity -- map that local RDF ontology
to other RDF ontologies, which might be new and specific to my
task, or might be in common use elsewhere, etc.

Option #3 is a collapsed version of #2 -- a local ontology is
still involved (I believe, because it is a necessary stage in  
the process), but it may never be seen by the user (and it may
never be acknowledged by the implementer), and they may only 
want (or be able) to deal with the RDB Schema elements which 
correspond directly with the desired target RDF ontologies.


I suggested the flip of previous #2 and #3, because of the (to 
me) obvious progression described above which this flip makes
more visible.  If that makes this subject to discussion once 
again, then flip the order back -- but I really do not believe 
that any of these three should be dropped from the presentation.


> I suggest:
>  
> 1.       Local Ontology mapping + local-to-domain Ontology mapping
> ·         Local Ontology mapping only (option)
> 2.       DB Schema to Domain ontology direct mapping
>  
> If you look at many current products they typically use option-1 above.

Are you saying that no current products use my Option #1?  You
are mistaken, if so.

Be seeing you,

Ted






> Ahmed
>  
> 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 Off: 408-447-6380  Fax: 1408796-5427
> Personal:   Email: AhmedEzzat@aol.com Tel: 408-253-5062  Fax:  408-253-6271
>  
>  
> From: public-rdb2rdf-wg-request@w3.org [mailto:public-rdb2rdf-wg-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Juan Sequeda
> Sent: Thursday, May 13, 2010 9:18 PM
> To: public-rdb2rdf-wg@w3.org
> Subject: Images of RDB2RDF options updated
>  
> Hi Everybody
>  
> Ted and I have updated the images that depict the three different RDB2RDF options.
>  
> [1] Option 1: Direct Mapping (no domain ontology involved
> [2] Option 2: Direct Mapping + Ontology to Ontology Mapping
> [3] Option 3: Database to Ontology Mapping (no visible local ontology
>  
> Please note that the current Option 3 was the old Option 2 (and vice-versa)
>  
> Let me know if there are questions
>  
> Cheers
>  
> [1] http://userweb.cs.utexas.edu/~jsequeda/rdb2rdf/RDB2RDF_Option_1.jpg
> [2] http://userweb.cs.utexas.edu/~jsequeda/rdb2rdf/RDB2RDF_Option_2.jpg
> [3] http://userweb.cs.utexas.edu/~jsequeda/rdb2rdf/RDB2RDF_Option_3.jpg
> 
> Juan Sequeda
> +1-575-SEQ-UEDA
> www.juansequeda.com

--
A: Yes.                      http://www.guckes.net/faq/attribution.html
| Q: Are you sure?
| | A: Because it reverses the logical flow of conversation.
| | | Q: Why is top posting frowned upon?

Ted Thibodeau, Jr.           //               voice +1-781-273-0900 x32
Evangelism & Support         //        mailto:tthibodeau@openlinksw.com
                             //              http://twitter.com/TallTed
OpenLink Software, Inc.      //              http://www.openlinksw.com/
        10 Burlington Mall Road, Suite 265, Burlington MA 01803
                                 http://www.openlinksw.com/weblogs/uda/
OpenLink Blogs              http://www.openlinksw.com/weblogs/virtuoso/
                               http://www.openlinksw.com/blog/~kidehen/
    Universal Data Access and Virtual Database Technology Providers

Received on Friday, 14 May 2010 14:12:01 UTC