W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-rdb2rdf-wg@w3.org > July 2011

Re: Proposal for the Direct Mapping

From: Marcelo Arenas <marcelo.arenas1@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 26 Jul 2011 16:35:05 -0400
Message-ID: <CA+7aXj5cwrUsVrSo75kGu49i8jN-iGP3WMQ_mjVXAR8QG4PZuA@mail.gmail.com>
To: ashok.malhotra@oracle.com
Cc: Juan Sequeda <juanfederico@gmail.com>, Richard Cyganiak <richard@cyganiak.de>, rdb2RDF WG <public-rdb2rdf-wg@w3.org>
I agree.

Cheers,

Marcelo

On Tue, Jul 26, 2011 at 3:35 PM, ashok malhotra
<ashok.malhotra@oracle.com> wrote:
> Eric, Marcelo, Alexandre:
> Are you agreeable to this proposal:  Normative text in English.
> Denotational Semantics and Rules as non-normative appendices.
> All the best, Ashok
> On 7/26/2011 11:46 AM, Juan Sequeda wrote:
>
> Richard,
> This is pretty scary... I was working on something exactly the same right
> now!!!
> I've read the R2RML spec several times and I really like the way it is done
> (I have some comments, but that will go later), specially the way how
> everything is defined in plain english. So I was going to propose to have
> the english as the normative and move the formalism to appendix. This way we
> can all be happy. Anyways, you beat me to the proposal :P
> anyways...
> +1
>
> Juan Sequeda
> +1-575-SEQ-UEDA
> www.juansequeda.com
>
>
> On Tue, Jul 26, 2011 at 1:41 PM, Richard Cyganiak <richard@cyganiak.de>
> wrote:
>>
>> Hi all,
>>
>> The Direct Mapping document is stuck because we have a stalemate between
>> the editors. With Last Call approaching, we need *some* way of breaking the
>> stalemate. So here's a proposal. This is a possible new outline for the
>> document, along with assignments of separate sections to separate editors.
>>
>>
>>    1. Introduction
>>       - What is this?
>>       - How does it relate to R2RML
>>       - Target audience, assumed level of knowledge
>>       - RDF terms and SQL/relational terms are used as defined in
>>         documents XXX and YYY
>>
>>    2. Example (Informative)
>>       - A simple two-table example
>>       - Quick explanation of foreign key handling
>>       - Quick explanation of tables w/o PKs
>>
>>    3. The Direct Mapping [in Plain English]
>>       - “The Direct Graph of a database is the union of the Table Graphs
>>          of all tables in the database.”
>>       - “The Table Graph of a table is the union of the Row Graphs...”
>>       - “The Row Graph of a row is ...”
>>       - ...
>>
>>    A. Appendix: Formalisms (Informative)
>>       - should be crisp, short, precise, with only minimum explanation
>>         and examples
>>       A.1 Datalog Rules
>>       A.2 Denotational Semantics
>>       A.3 Set-Style Direct Mapping
>>
>>    B. Acknowledgements (Informative)
>>
>>    C. References
>>
>>
>> I see Juan and Marcelo editing A.1.
>>
>> I see Alexandre editing A.2.
>>
>> I see Eric editing 2 (which he already wrote), 3 (which *mostly* exists),
>> and A.3.
>>
>> I don't know about 1, B, and C.
>>
>> My reasoning is that there is no objective way of picking any of the
>> formalisms over another formalism, so the normative expression should be the
>> lowest common denominator: plain English. By making the formalisms all
>> informative, we free them from the burden of having to explain the direct
>> mapping itself in a generally accessible way. The focus can be totally on
>> presenting the formalisms in all their terseness to an audience that is
>> familiar with datalog/denotational semantics/whatever.
>>
>> I hope this proposal aids discussion.
>>
>> Best,
>> Richard
>
>
Received on Tuesday, 26 July 2011 20:35:34 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 26 July 2011 20:35:35 GMT