W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-rdf-dawg@w3.org > October to December 2009

Fwd: RDB2RDF Working Group

From: Axel Polleres <axel.polleres@deri.org>
Date: Mon, 23 Nov 2009 15:49:18 +0100
To: SPARQL Working Group <public-rdf-dawg@w3.org>
Message-Id: <CB2E1314-2D70-47ED-BD81-AEAB5054466A@deri.org>
FYI, some conversation with Marcelo Arenas from the RDB2RDF working group which I share with his permission...


Begin forwarded message:

> From: Axel Polleres <axel.polleres@deri.org>
> Date: 23 November 2009 15:40:50 GMT+01:00
> To: "Marcelo Arenas" <marcelo.arenas1@gmail.com>
> Subject: Re: RDB2RDF Working Group
> Hi Marcelo!
> Good to hear from you!
> First of all, can I share this conversation with the SPARQL WG/Chairs?
> (I ask because you addressed to me alone)
> Now my answer:
> Looking forward to collaborate with you on the RDB2RDF side of the liaison with SPARQL...
> Indeed the definition of integrity constraints such as keys and foreign keys is not a part of SPARQL.
> In fact, SPARQL is not a data definition language: we define a query language (SPARQL/query [1]) and 
> a data manipulation language (SPARQL/update [2]), but aren't chartered for designing data definitions...
> Dataset descriptions, as far as we are concerned with (as a part of SPARQL/service descriptions [3])
> will be very basic, just providing hooks to data descriptions at most, that is a minimal set of properties to link to dataset descriptions in some external formalism (concretely void and saddle have been discussed earlier, 
> but we will most likely not actively promote a particular data definition language).
> I hope that clarifies matters. in fact, I'd honestly see the definition/description of constraints on datasets as something on the side of extensions of OWL/RDF Schema rather than on the side of SPARQL. That latter sentence is my personal view... probably something to be discussed/suggested in the upcoming "next steps on RDF" W3C workshop.
> best regards,
> Axel
> 1. http://www.w3.org/TR/sparql11-query/
> 2. http://www.w3.org/TR/sparql11-update/
> 3. http://www.w3.org/TR/sparql11-service-description/
> On 23 Nov 2009, at 15:29, Marcelo Arenas wrote:
>> Dear Axel,
>> As you probably know, there is a new working group in the W3C whose
>> mission is to standardize a language for mapping relational data into
>> RDF and OWL  (RDB2RDF WG). I am an invited expert in that group.
>> The work on SPARQL is fundamental for the work of the RDB2RDF WG, so
>> we would like to coordinate our efforts with that of the SPARQL WG.
>> For that reason, I have volunteered to be the liaison between the
>> RDB2RDF group and your group.
>> Currently, we are trying to define the list of features of the data
>> definition language of SQL that will be supported in the mapping
>> language for relational data into RDF and OWL. One of these features
>> is the definition of integrity constraints such as keys and foreign
>> keys, so I was wondering whether you have discussed about the
>> possibility of including integrity constraints in the data definition
>> language of SPARQL. I took a look at the SPARQL WG Wiki and I couldn't
>> find any reference about this, but maybe I am missing something. Thank
>> you in advance for any information about this.
>> Cheers,
>> Marcelo
Received on Monday, 23 November 2009 14:50:03 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 7 January 2015 15:00:58 UTC