W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-xg-rdb2rdf@w3.org > February 2009

Re: Cancelling Feb 27 Telcon

From: ashok malhotra <ashok.malhotra@oracle.com>
Date: Tue, 24 Feb 2009 08:37:11 -0800
Message-ID: <49A42237.3030505@oracle.com>
To: Sören Auer <auer@informatik.uni-leipzig.de>
CC: public-xg-rdb2rdf <public-xg-rdb2rdf@w3.org>
Thanks, Soeren, I will find that.  Your changes look good to me.
All the best, Ashok


Sören Auer wrote:
> ashok malhotra wrote:
>> I think we are done!
>> I have placed a revised version of the proposed charter at 
>> http://www.w3.org/2005/Incubator/rdb2rdf/WG-draft-charter/Overview.html
>>
>> This contains minor changes as recommended by the SWCG on last 
>> Friday's call.
>> Please take a look.  It doesn't display quite correctly for me.  If 
>> you have problems also
>> please reply and I will try and fix it.
>
> The wired look is due to the incorrect references to CSS stylesheets 
> and images in the head of the HTML page. I fixed that as well as a 
> number of typos in the attached version - just upload it and 
> everything should show up fine ;-)
>
> I also replaced "simple" in "simple applications such as Web 2.0 
> applications" with "lightweight", which fits better from my point of 
> view and capitalized MUST in "language must be able to expose vendor 
> specific SQL features". I also added a link to www.linkeddata.org in 
> "3.2 External Groups".
>
> Cheers,
>
> Sören
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>     * Scope <#scope>
>     * Deliverables <#deliverables>
>     * Dependencies <#coordination>
>     * Participation <#participation>
>     * Communication <#communication>
>     * Decision Policy <#decisions>
>     * Patent Policy <#patentpolicy>
>     * About this Charter <#about>
>
> W3C <http://www.w3.org/> Technology and Society Domain 
> <http://www.w3.org/TandS/>
>
>
>   RDB2RDF Working Group Charter
>
> *Revised February 24, 2009*
>
> In the last few years there has been increasing interest in mapping 
> Relational data to the Semantic Web. This is to allow Relational data 
> to be combined with other data on the Web, to add semantics to 
> Relational data and to aid in enterprise data integration. In October 
> 2007, the W3C organized a workshop on RDF Access to Relational 
> Databases <http://www.w3.org/2007/03/RdfRDB/report>. This led to the 
> formation of the RDB2RDF Incubator Group 
> <http://www.w3.org/2005/Incubator/rdb2rdf/> to explore the area. This 
> Incubator Group recently concluded its work and produced two 
> deliverables: a Survey of the State of the Art 
> <http://www.w3.org/2005/Incubator/rdb2rdf/RDB2RDF_SurveyReport.pdf> 
> and a RDB2RDF XG Final Report 
> <http://www.w3.org/2005/Incubator/rdb2rdf/XGR/>. The RDB2RDF XG Final 
> Report. <http://www.w3.org/2005/Incubator/rdb2rdf/XGR/> recommends 
> that the W3C initiate a Working Group to standardize a language for 
> mapping Relational database schemas to RDF and OWL. This charter is a 
> follow-up to that recommendation.
>
> Consequently, the *mission* of the RDB2RDF Working Group, part of the 
> Semantic Web Activity <http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/>, is to standardize 
> a language for mapping Relational Database schemas into RDF and OWL: 
> the RDB2RDF Mapping Language (R2RML).
>
> The mapping language defined by the WG would facilitate the 
> development of several types of products. It could be used to 
> translate Relational data into RDF which could be stored in a triple 
> store. This is sometimes called Extract-Transform-Load (ETL). Or it 
> could be used to generate a virtual mapping that could be queried 
> using SPARQL and the SPARQL translated to SQL queries on the 
> underlying Relational data. Other products could be layered on top of 
> these capabilities to query and deliver data in different ways as well 
> as to integrate the data with other kinds of information on the 
> Semantic Web. The RDB2RDF XG Final Report 
> <http://www.w3.org/2005/Incubator/rdb2rdf/XGR/> includes several 
> detailed usecases that motivate the mapping language.
>
> Join the RDB2RDF Working Group.
>
> End date 	30 June 2011 (two years from inception)
> Confidentiality 	Proceedings are public 
> <http://www.w3.org/2005/10/Process-20051014/comm.html#confidentiality-levels> 
>
> Initial Chairs 	CHAIR INFO
> Initial Team Contacts
> (FTE %: 5 to 10) 	TEAM CONTACT INFO
> Usual Meeting Schedule 	Teleconferences: Weekly
> Face-to-face: 3-4 per year
>
>
>     Scope
>
> Based on the Survey of Current Approaches for Mapping of Relational 
> Databases to RDF 
> <http://www.w3.org/2005/Incubator/rdb2rdf/RDB2RDF_SurveyReport.pdf> 
> prepared by the RDB2RDF XG and the RDB2RDF XG Final Report 
> <http://www.w3.org/2005/Incubator/rdb2rdf/XGR/> the scope of R2RML is 
> defined as follows:
>
>     * The mapping language MUST define the mapping of Relational
>       schemas to RDF and OWL.
>     * The mapping language SHOULD be complete with regard to the
>       Relational algebra, i.e. all Relational constructs SHOULD be
>       expressible in the language.
>     * The mapping language SHOULD have a human-readable syntax as well
>       as XML and RDF representations of the syntax for purposes of
>       discovery and machine generation.
>     * The mapping language SHOULD be expressed in rules as defined by
>       the W3C RIF WG
>       <http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wiki/RIF_Working_Group>. The
>       syntax need not follow the RIF syntax but there SHOULD exist a
>       round-tripable transformation between the mapping language and
>       an RIF dialect.
>     * It SHOULD be possible to subset the mapping language for
>       lightweight applications such as Web 2.0 applications. This
>       feature of the language will be validated by creating a library
>       of mappings for widely used applications such as Drupal,
>       Wordpress and phpBB.
>     * The mapping language MUST allow customization with regard to
>       names and data transformation. In addition the language MUST
>       allow the addition of rules and RDF constraints as part of the
>       mapping.
>     * The language must be able to expose vendor specific SQL features
>       such as full-text and spatial support and vendor-defined datatypes.
>     * The mapping language specification SHOULD include guidance with
>       regard to mapping Relational data to a subset of OWL such as
>       OWL/QL or OWL/RL.
>     * The mapping language MUST allow for a mechanism to create
>       identifiers for database entities. The generation of identifiers
>       should be designed to support the implementation of the linked
>       data principles
>       <http://www.w3.org/DesignIssues/LinkedData.html>. Where
>       possible, the language will encourage the reuse of public
>       identifiers for long-lived entities such as persons,
>       corporations and geo-locations.
>
> The Survey of the State of the Art 
> <http://www.w3.org/2005/Incubator/rdb2rdf/RDB2RDF_SurveyReport.pdf> 
> describes several languages and implementations that may be used as 
> starting points for the work of the WG.
>
>
>       Success Criteria
>
>     * Timely preparation of the deliverables. See below.
>     * At least two conforming implementations of the mapping language,
>       perhaps embedded into products that provide additional
>       functionality.
>
>
>       Out of Scope
>
>     * Mapping from non-Relational data to RDF and OWL.
>     * Updating the Relational Database based on changes to the RDF or OWL.
>
>
>     Deliverables
>
>     * A specification for a language to map Relational schemas to RDF
>       and OWL as a W3C Recommendation.
>     * A set of test cases to test conformance.
>
> [Recommended information]
>
>
>       Other Deliverables
>
> [Replace this text] Describe any other deliverables such as test 
> suites, tools, or reviews of other groups' deliverables.
>
>
>       Milestones
>
> [Replace this text] Specification transition estimates and other 
> milestones
>
> Milestones Note: The group will document significant changes from this 
> initial schedule on the group home page.
> Specification 	FPWD 	LC 	CR 	PR 	Rec
> FooML 	Month YYYY 	Month YYYY 	Month YYYY 	Month YYYY 	Month YYYY
> BarML 	Month YYYY 	Month YYYY 	Month YYYY 	Month YYYY 	Month YYYY
>
> [Recommended information]
>
>
>       Timeline View Summary
>
> [Replace this text] Put here a timeline view of *all deliverables*.
>
>     * Month YYYY: First teleconference
>     * Month YYYY: First face-to-face meeting
>     * Month YYYY: Requirements and Use Cases for the RDB2RDF Mapping
>       Language (R2RML)
>     * Month YYYY: First Public Working Draft for R2RML
>     * Month YYYY: First Public Working Draft R2RML Primer
>     * Month YYYY: R2RML Test Cases
>     * Month YYYY: R2RML Syntax
>
>
>     Dependencies
>
>
>       W3C Groups
>
> SPARQL Working Group (DAWG) <http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/DataAccess/>
>     Track the evolution of SPARQL (updates, etc.).
> RIF WG <http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wiki/RIF_Working_Group>
>     Define a dialect of RIF for the mapping language.
> OWL WG <http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/wiki/OWL_Working_Group>
>     Track the evolution of OWL2.
>
> Furthermore, RDB2RDF Working Group expects to follow these W3C 
> Recommendations:
>
>     * QA Framework: Specification Guidelines
>       <http://www.w3.org/TR/qaframe-spec/>.
>     * Character Model for the World Wide Web 1.0: Fundamentals
>       <http://www.w3.org/TR/charmod/>
>     * Architecture of the World Wide Web, Volume I
>       <http://www.w3.org/TR/webarch/>
>
>
>       External Groups
>
> Linked Data community <http://linkeddata.org/>
>     To support the implementation of the linked data principles.
> The OKKAM Project <http://www.okkam.org/>
>     The ENS System for assigning reusable identifiers to people,
>     locations, organizations, events, products, etc.
> Neuro Commons Common Naming Project 
> <http://neurocommons.org/page/Common_Naming_Project>
>     Reusable identifiers for life sciences entities.
> Health Care and Life Sciences Interest Group 
> <http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/hcls/>
>     Health Care and Life Sciences Interest Group
>
>
>     Participation
>
> To be successful, the RDB2RDF Working Group is expected to have 5 or 
> more active participants for its duration. Effective participation to 
> RDB2RDF Working Group is expected to consume one work day per week for 
> each participant; two days per week for editors. The RDB2RDF Working 
> Group will allocate also the necessary resources for building Test 
> Suites for each specification.
>
> Participants are reminded of the Good Standing requirements 
> <http://www.w3.org/2005/10/Process-20051014/groups.html#good-standing> 
> of the W3C Process.
>
>
>     Communication
>
> This group primarily conducts its work on the public mailing list LIST 
> NAME. [Replace this text] Provide information about additional 
> Member-only lists that are used for administrative purposes.
>
> Information about the group (deliverables, participants, face-to-face 
> meetings, teleconferences, etc.) is available from the RDB2RDF Working 
> Group home page.
>
>
>     Decision Policy
>
> As explained in the Process Document (section 3.3 
> <http://www.w3.org/Consortium/Process/policies#Consensus>), this group 
> will seek to make decisions when there is consensus. When the Chair 
> puts a question and observes dissent, after due consideration of 
> different opinions, the Chair should record a decision (possibly after 
> a formal vote) and any objections, and move on.
>
>     * When deciding a substantive technical issue, the Chair may put a
>       question before the group. The Chair must only do so during a
>       group meeting
>       <http://www.w3.org/Consortium/Process/policies.html#GeneralMeetings>,
>       and at least two-thirds of participants in Good Standing
>       <http://www.w3.org/Consortium/Process/groups.html#good-standing>
>       must be in attendance. When the Chair conducts a formal vote
>       <http://www.w3.org/Consortium/Process/policies#Votes> to reach a
>       decision on a substantive technical issue, eligible voters may
>       vote on a proposal one of three ways: for a proposal, against a
>       proposal, or abstain. For the proposal to pass there must be
>       more votes for the proposal than against. In case of a tie, the
>       Chair will decide the outcome of the proposal.
>     * This charter is written in accordance with Section 3.4, Votes
>       <http://www.w3.org/Consortium/Process/policies#Votes> of the W3C
>       Process Document and includes no voting procedures beyond what
>       the Process Document requires.
>
>
>     Patent Policy
>
> This Working Group operates under the W3C Patent Policy 
> <http://www.w3.org/Consortium/Patent-Policy-20040205/> (5 February 
> 2004 Version). To promote the widest adoption of Web standards, W3C 
> seeks to issue Recommendations that can be implemented, according to 
> this policy, on a Royalty-Free basis.
>
> For more information about disclosure obligations for this group, 
> please see the W3C Patent Policy Implementation 
> <http://www.w3.org/2004/01/pp-impl/>.
>
>
>     About this Charter
>
> This charter for the RDB2RDF Working Group has been created according 
> to section 6.2 <http://www.w3.org/Consortium/Process/groups#GAGeneral> 
> of the Process Document <http://www.w3.org/Consortium/Process>. In the 
> event of a conflict between this document or the provisions of any 
> charter and the W3C Process, the W3C Process shall take precedence.
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Ashok Malhotra (Oracle), Michel Hausenblas (DERI)
>
> Copyright <http://www.w3.org/Consortium/Legal/ipr-notice#Copyright>© 
> 2009 W3C <http://www.w3.org/> ^® (MIT <http://www.csail.mit.edu/> , 
> ERCIM <http://www.ercim.org/> , Keio <http://www.keio.ac.jp/>), All 
> Rights Reserved.
>
> $Date: 2009/02/24 14:48:16 $
>
Received on Tuesday, 24 February 2009 16:39:18 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 24 February 2009 16:39:18 GMT