Re: Draft of Use Case document on Wiki (as promised)

On Apr 19, 2010, at 12:21 PM, Eric Prud'hommeaux wrote:

> * Juan Sequeda <juanfederico@gmail.com> [2010-04-19 10:48-0500]
>> Michael
>>
>> I just updated [1] again. I moved the section Expressivity,  
>> written by Eric
>> to [2] . In the spreadsheet, we have the following taxonomy per
>> Expressivity:
>>
>>
>>    1. Expressivity
>>       - Node Label Generation: Graph node names are synthesized  
>> from a
>>       function of database attributes
>>       - Datatype expressions
>>          - Simple
>>          - Relational data (cells) are mapped to rdf datatypes per  
>> SQL XSD
>>          mapping.
>>          - Micorparsing: Relational data are parsed and mapped to rdf
>>          graphs.
>>
>>
>> But now that we dig into it I think it is redundant with what is  
>> already in
>> [1] . In particular,
>>
>> “b Node Label Generation” appears to be the same as the role of  
>> the ontology
>> being putative,
>
> I don't see the connection. If I am exporting a human resources
> database in say FOAF and vcal, I am likely to generate resources based
> on some function of attribute names:
>   http://myco.example/Employee?id=218 foaf:givenName "Bob" .
> Likewise, if I accept sort of a default ontology from the database
> structure, I may want to do the same:
>   http://myco.example/Employee?id=218 Employee:fname "Bob" .
>
> The mapping language could be much simpler if it did not handle graph
> transformations (simple mapping of attributes to predicates), but I
> know that several use cases are not met by that.


I just looked up the (or at least a) FOAF Spec.

http://xmlns.com/foaf/spec/
"This document is created by combining the RDFS/OWL machine-readable  
FOAF ontology"

So if you are exporting a data to FOAF then per the taxonomy you are  
mapping relational data wrt an existing domain ontology.

I won't be surprised if there is confusion/ambiguity about this.   
Recall when I first emerged with the taxonomy I qualified that I was  
more interested in making
sure we mean the same thing we are talking with each other than any  
proprietary interest I have in the taxonomy.

>
>
>> “c Data type expression” and its three cases appear to be the same as
>> classifying the treatment of relational data sources at the start  
>> of the
>> document
>
> Sorry, I'm not following this. Could you give examples of the
> redundancy?

I have written

                      i.     Structured

Consider only highly structured database content. String and other  
text fields are not considered valuable.

                        ii.     Structured + Semistructured

Text fields are considered valued but are treated simply as unparsed  
strings.

                         iii.     Structured + Microparsed Tagged Text

Text fields in the database are parsed into an RDF graph per an  
existing ontology.





You have written

> Datatype expressions
>          - Simple
>          - Relational data (cells) are mapped to rdf datatypes per  
> SQL XSD
>          mapping.
>          - Micorparsing: Relational data are parsed and mapped to rdf
>          graphs.



We may need to hash out/refine the subcategories and their titles,  
but, at the level of detail we are at this time I'm thinking

Simple == Structured
Realational Data... per SQL XSD Mapping ==  Structured + Semistructured
Microparsing == Structured + Microparsed Tagged Data


Possibly a difference in our thinking is that you may be looking at  
row content as a row in a CSV file, divorced from
the column names and SQL data types;  thus the entire content of the  
row depends on parsing.

This is why, in part, my category names are Structured + something.


I'm also wondering if your designations of expressivity belong in the  
requirement section on the language.
Note I've broken up the requirements into two parts, 1)  those  
mechanical requrements on the language, e.g. its connections to RIF,
and requriements on syntactic convention, In other words requirements  
of languages that come from the Semantic Web community
2) The requirements that come from the applications/end users.




>
>
>> • We have updated that section to include Eric’s requirement that
>> microparsing produce an RDF graph.
>
> Do we have use cases supporting that? I merely meant to point out that
> it was an option, but I don't think anyone has asked for it yet.


No we don't have any use cases.  However, an entire half of my  
application facing life
is with systematic biologists.  They have so many databases of tables  
of 4 or 5 columns of structured
data, with another 3 or 4 columns of text field, it is painful.  Even  
something like the geographic
location where a specimen was collected will usually be in a text  
field that could contain anything
from a lat/long to "50 feet in front of Tom Miller Dam in Austin",  
and everything in between.



>
>
>> • Similarly, we have penciled in the rdf datatype mapping in  
>> Section 2.
>>
>> This is just to let everybody know what happened to this part.
>>
>> We can discuss this tomorrow.
>>
>> In conclusion, [1] is ready (even though it still needs to be  
>> expanded)
>>
>> [1] http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/rdb2rdf/wiki/Use_Cases_and_Requirements
>> [2] http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/rdb2rdf/wiki/Draft_of_Use_Cases
>> <http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/rdb2rdf/wiki/Use_Cases_and_Requirements>
>> Juan Sequeda
>> +1-575-SEQ-UEDA
>> www.juansequeda.com
>>
>>
>> On Mon, Apr 19, 2010 at 10:32 AM, Michael Hausenblas <
>> michael.hausenblas@deri.org> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> Great work, Juan!
>>>
>>> We (Eric and I) take over for now (consider the Wiki stable for  
>>> the moment)
>>> in order to compile a version for tomorrow's meeting at [1].
>>>
>>>
>>> Cheers,
>>>      Michael
>>>
>>> [1] http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/rdb2rdf/use-cases/
>>>
>>> --
>>> Dr. Michael Hausenblas
>>> LiDRC - Linked Data Research Centre
>>> DERI - Digital Enterprise Research Institute
>>> NUIG - National University of Ireland, Galway
>>> Ireland, Europe
>>> Tel. +353 91 495730
>>> http://linkeddata.deri.ie/
>>> http://sw-app.org/about.html
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>> From: Juan Sequeda <juanfederico@gmail.com>
>>>> Date: Mon, 19 Apr 2010 10:29:17 -0500
>>>> To: RDB2RDF WG <public-rdb2rdf-wg@w3.org>
>>>> Subject: Draft of Use Case document on Wiki (as promised)
>>>> Resent-From: RDB2RDF WG <public-rdb2rdf-wg@w3.org>
>>>> Resent-Date: Mon, 19 Apr 2010 15:29:52 +0000
>>>>
>>>> Hi Everybody
>>>>
>>>> You can find an updated version of the Use Case document here  
>>>> [1]. This
>>> is
>>>> the original page that we have been adding all the use cases. I  
>>>> created a
>>>> Draft of Use Cases page here [2].
>>>>
>>>> Therefore, we should be focusing on [1]. I still need to add  
>>>> some of the
>>>> UML, DDL, etc.
>>>>
>>>> I'm following the example that Michael once gave out from the  
>>>> RDFa Use
>>> Case
>>>> document [3] where they originally show HTML (before) and then show
>>>> HTML+RDFa (after). I think this is something that we should do  
>>>> in this
>>>> document. However, I guess this may be up for discussion.
>>>>
>>>> Looking forward to your comments
>>>>
>>>> [1] http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/rdb2rdf/wiki/ 
>>>> Use_Cases_and_Requirements
>>>> [2] http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/rdb2rdf/wiki/Draft_of_Use_Cases
>>>> <http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/rdb2rdf/wiki/ 
>>>> Use_Cases_and_Requirements>[3]
>>>> http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml-rdfa-scenarios/#use-case-1
>>>>
>>>> Juan Sequeda
>>>> +1-575-SEQ-UEDA
>>>> www.juansequeda.com
>>>
>>>
>
> -- 
> -ericP