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

Hi fellows,

I also agree that working on the existing challenges in each category
requires more focus and time, therefore, having concentrated groups would
be the best practice. I think what Ben mentioned is also important; we
cannot work on each category, languages in this case, isolated! We need to
go back and forth with use cases and examples to better address the
challenges.

All the best,
Sam




On Thu, Nov 5, 2020 at 10:48 PM Thomas Delva (UGent-imec) <
Thomas.Delva@ugent.be> wrote:

> Hi all,
>
> I will also be very happy to work further in a smaller group on mapping
> language design.
>
> Over the next days, I will add concrete challenges we or other RML users
> encountered to the repository.
>
> I hope tackling these (and other) concrete challenges will in a later
> stage lead us to agree on a set of more high-level
> properties/characteristics a good mapping language should have.
>
> Kind regards,
> Thomas
> ------------------------------
> *From:* Ben De Meester <ben.demeester@ugent.be>
> *Sent:* Thursday, November 5, 2020 3:21 PM
> *To:* Anastasia Dimou (UGent-imec) <Anastasia.Dimou@UGent.be>
> *Cc:* public-kg-construct@w3.org <public-kg-construct@w3.org>
> *Subject:* Re: follow up on languages - what is your opinion?
>
> Ah yes, I'm certainly interested, I'd like to end up with a kind of white
> paper with challenges and (partial) solutions.
>
> My current idea would be that each challenge is accompanied with at least
> one test case, which is a combination of '[set of input files]' and
> '[resulting output graph]', we could then even challenge the current test
> cases, and have a kind of competition between languages and processors.
> Added advantage would be that this is mapping language independent. This
> could also result in a set of 'best practices', i.e., 'if you have
> construction problem X, you can solve it with mapping language Y and
> mapping document Z' :P.
>
> So, above is my first suggestion to the question 'how to represent these
> challenges'. which imo. is the first to be discussed in the smaller group
> of people :P.
>
> Kind regards,
> Ben
> Ben De Meester
> Researcher Semantic Web
> imec - Ghent University - IDLab | Faculty of Engineering and Architecture
> | Department of Electronics and Information Systems
> Technologiepark-Zwijnaarde 122, 9052 Ghent, Belgium
> t: +32 9 331 49 56 | e: ben.demeester@ugent.be | URL:
> https://ben.de-meester.org/#me
> <https://ben.de-meester.org/#me>
>
>
> Op do 29 okt. 2020 om 18:04 schreef Anastasia Dimou (UGent-imec) <
> Anastasia.Dimou@ugent.be>:
>
> Dear all,
>
>
>
> Following our discussions during the 1st bi-weekly meeting, we would like
> to invite you to share your thoughts about the following suggestion:
>
>
>
> David and I suggest
>
>    - *organizing a smaller group of people to discuss further on the
>    challenges* (https://github.com/kg-construct/mapping-challenges) or
>    more challenges that can still be collected at this repository.
>    - *concluding on a set of challenges *that are not completely
>    addressed by all mapping languages and consider them as part of a
>    forthcoming workshop’s call. The idea is then that people can propose
>    their approach of tackling the challenge(s) as a scientific papers.
>    Different approaches for different languages may be then presented and
>    discussed during the aforementioned workshop.
>
>
>
> What are your comments, suggestions, feedback on what is proposed and how
> to proceed?
> And of course, would you intend to participate in any of the two above?
>
>
>
> Kind regards,
>
> Anastasia
>
>

-- 

------------------------

Samaneh Jozashoori (Ms.)

Data Science Researcher,

L3S-TIB Joint Lab,

Leibniz Universität Hanover,

Germany

samaneh.jozashoori@gmail.com
samaneh.jozashoori@tib.eu
jozashoori@l3s.de