Re: follow up on TOOLS - what is your opinion?

Dear all,

I agree with these next steps.

It would be interesting to have an up-to-date overview of tools which
are compliant with certain specifications, so reviving the
implementation report for R2RML is a good approach.
Besides compliance with specifications, considering performance,
resource usage and other metrics in the reports can be useful as well
depending on the use case.This information can be extracted from the use
cases discussion.

Kind regards,
Dylan Van Assche

On 29.10.20 21:58, David Chaves wrote:
> Dear all,
> Last but not least, our ideas about the next steps about tools and
> evaluation methods.
>
> We suggest
> • waiting for results from use cases discussion before proceeding
> further with discussions on how the use cases may reflect on the data
> • organizing a smaller group to discuss on methods for evaluating and
> comparing tools
> • organizing a smaller group on a set of new test cases that could be
> considered for heterogeneous data beyond what was already proposed for
> R2RML and was translated for heterogeneous data
> (https://github.com/RMLio/rml-test-cases). The idea is then, similarly
> to mapping languages, that people can write down their approach of
> tackling the challenge as a scientific paper.
> • organizing a smaller group to revive and keep it alive a new R2RML
> implementation report
> (https://github.com/kg-construct/r2rml-implementation-report) 
>
> The different options do not exclude each other!
>
> We welcome comments on the suggestions, proposals on how to proceed
> and of course intend of participation in any of the two above.
>
>
> Best regards,
> David
>
> *David Chaves*
> PhD Student
> Ontology Engineering Group (OEG)
> Universidad Politécnica de Madrid
>
-- 
Dylan Van Assche
PhD researcher Semantic Web at IDLab Ghent
AA Tower, 7th floor
Technologiepark 122
9052 Ghent
+32 472 246 280
dylan.vanassche@ugent.be