Re: Use Cases and Requirements for Mapping Relational Databases to RDF

Sören,

> I don't understand how the clustering of the requirements you made is
> related to data and schema.
> The currently labeled functional requirements appear to be *core*
> requirements with regard to the mapping, while the currently labeled
> non-functional ones could maybe better named *auxiliary* requirements.
> Such a distinction from my point of view could make sense.

You are certainly right. I was thinking in terms of functional where it
effects the expressivity of the language vs. non-functional where related,
but non-core features are proposed (update-log support, for example).

And indeed, yes, I had the software engineering-based distinction in mind as
well, when I proposed the categorisation.

If people think this categorisation causes confusion, happy to drop it and
have a flat list. The proposed categorisation, however, is thought to be
orthogonal to MUST/SHOULD as of RFC 2119 [1].

Cheers,
      Michael

[1] http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc2119
-- 
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: Sören Auer <soeren.auer@gmail.com>
> Date: Thu, 22 Apr 2010 08:16:09 +0200
> To: Eric Prud'hommeaux <eric@w3.org>
> Cc: Michael Hausenblas <michael.hausenblas@deri.org>, Sören Auer
> <auer@informatik.uni-leipzig.de>, RDB2RDF WG <public-rdb2rdf-wg@w3.org>
> Subject: Re: Use Cases and Requirements for Mapping Relational Databases to
> RDF
> Resent-From: RDB2RDF WG <public-rdb2rdf-wg@w3.org>
> Resent-Date: Thu, 22 Apr 2010 07:55:55 +0000
> 
> On 21.04.2010 8:28, Eric Prud'hommeaux wrote:
>> I think we were looking for a way to distinguish the data-dependent
>> features from the schema-dependent features. Any suggestions for
>> wording? (maybe "data-dependent", "schema-dependent"?)
> 
> I don't understand how the clustering of the requirements you made is
> related to data and schema.
> The currently labeled functional requirements appear to be *core*
> requirements with regard to the mapping, while the currently labeled
> non-functional ones could maybe better named *auxiliary* requirements.
> Such a distinction from my point of view could make sense.
> 
> Sören
>

Received on Thursday, 22 April 2010 08:09:34 UTC