W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-rdb2rdf-wg@w3.org > August 2012

Request to Advance RDB2RDF WG Specifications to Proposed Recommendation

From: Ashok Malhotra <ashok.malhotra@oracle.com>
Date: Thu, 02 Aug 2012 01:39:41 -0700
Message-ID: <501A3CCD.50109@oracle.com>
To: Tim Berners-Lee <timbl@w3.org>, "Ralph R. Swick" <swick@w3.org>, Thomas Roessler <tlr@w3.org>
CC: chairs@w3.org, W3C Communication Team <w3t-comm@w3.org>, RDB2RDF WG <public-rdb2rdf-wg@w3.org>
The RDB2RDF Working Group requests that the R2RML and the DM specifications be
transitioned to the Proposed Recommendation stage of the W3C Process.
A few minor bugs were discovered in the first Last Call document during the the Candidate
Recommendation period and thus the WG embarked on a second Last Call.
The second Last Call period ended on June 19, 2012.  No new issues were found and
all implementations have been updated to reflect the new status.
The WG believes that it has fulfilled the CR exit criteria and would, therefore,
like to request this transition.


  R2RML: RDB to RDF Mapping Language: http://www.w3.org/TR/2012/PR-r2rml-20120814/

  DM: A Direct Mapping of Relational Data to RDF: http://www.w3.org/TR/2012/PR-rdb-direct-mapping-20120814/


The abstracts for the documents can be found at the following URLs:

  R2RML: http://www.w3.org/TR/2012/PR-rdb-direct-mapping-20120814#abstract <#A_Direct_Mapping_of_Relational_Data_to>

*DM: http://www.w3.org/TR/2012/PR-rdb-direct-mapping-20120814 <http://www.w3.org/TR/2012/PR-rdb-direct-mapping-20120814/>#abstract <http://www.w3.org/TR/2012/PR-r2rml-20120814/>*


The status sections for the documents can be found at the following URLs:

  R2RML: http://www.w3.org/TR/2012/PR-r2rml-20120814#status <http://www.w3.org/TR/2012/PR-r2rml-20120814/>

  DM: http://www.w3.org/TR/2012/PR-rdb-direct-mapping-20120814 <http://www.w3.org/TR/2012/PR-rdb-direct-mapping-20120814/>#status <http://www.w3.org/TR/2012/PR-r2rml-20120814/>

Proposed publication date:

August 14, 2012


The decision to request the transition to PR was made by the WG on July 10, 2012.
See final resolution in the minutes:
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdb2rdf-wg/2012Jul/0037.html  <http://www.w3.org/2010/02/rdfa/meetings/2012-04-26#resolution_4>

Significant Changes Since Previous Publication

All comments received during the Candidate Recommendation phase were
documented and tracked here:


All comments were resolved and the commenter was informed of the resolution.

Both documents incorporate pointers to diffs that detail the changes since
the last publication:

R2RML: http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/rdb2rdf/r2rml/diffs/PR.html

DM: http://www.w3.org/2012/07/DM-PR/LC-to-PR.html

Evidence That Documentation Satisfies Group's Requirements

The group's scope and deliverables are outlined in the RDB2RDF
Working Group charter: http://www.w3.org/2011/10/rdb2rdf-charter as well as the
Core Requirements described in the Use Cases and Requirements document:
The two documents the WG is requesting to transition cover the requirements in the
charter and the usecase document.

Evidence that Dependencies Have Been Met

These specifications have no outstanding normative dependency requirements.

Evidence for Wide Review

The DM has 25 test cases and R2RML has 62 test cases.  There are six implementations
of each spec some of them against multiple databases.  For the DM, no test was failed by
more than one implementation on one database although there are five test results
labelled "Cannot Tell" and four labelled "Untested"

For R2RML, nine tests were failed by two implementation/database combinations
although six were for the same implementation on different databases.  For one implementation
28 tests were labelled "Cannot Tell".

The implementation report is at:http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/rdb2rdf/implementation-report/NOTE-rdb2rdf-ir-20120724/

Overall, the level of conformance was impressive. Anecdotal evidence suggests that there
are several more implementations of the specs in the wild that have not taken the trouble
to run the tests and report the results.  Also, some members of the WG, such as Oracle,
and Revelytix did not report on their implementations due to marketing and/or timing reasons.

Evidence that issues have been formally addressed

The WG tracked issues using the RDB2RDF tracker http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/rdb2rdf/track/
All issues were discussed and resolved and in the case the comments were from a non-WG
member the commenter was informed of the WG decision and given an opportunity to disagree
or to re-raise the issue.  The Working Group believes that all comments from members of
the WG and the public have been discussed and resolved to the satisfaction of all parties.  Details
of issue discussion and resolution can be found in the issue tracker mentioned above.  <http://www.w3.org/2010/02/rdfa/wiki/Proposed_Recommendation_Disposition_of_Comments>

Implementation Information

The implementation report can be found at:http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/rdb2rdf/implementation-report/NOTE-rdb2rdf-ir-20120724/

None raised

Patent disclosures

All the best, Ashok
Received on Thursday, 2 August 2012 08:38:24 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:00:29 UTC