- From: Eric Prud'hommeaux <eric@w3.org>
- Date: Fri, 23 Apr 2010 07:40:34 -0400
- To: Juan Sequeda <juanfederico@gmail.com>
On Fri, Apr 23, 2010 at 2:27 AM, Juan Sequeda <juanfederico@gmail.com> wrote: > The issue of the ontology has never been discussed and I think this is > tremendously important! > When we are mapping our RDB to RDF, are we considering an > > existing domain ontology (FOAF, SIOC, etc) > a putative ontology (automatically generating the ontology from the > schema/DDL) > a federated ontology: combining different ontologies I've added [[ This graph can be used when it is desired to let the database structure determine the effective ontology of the RDF view. ]] to <http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/rdb2rdf/use-cases/#isomorphic> and [[ It is good Semantic Web practice to use shared ontologies. Using popular ontologies, or even ontologies which represent information in multiple domain databases, usually requires transformations [GraphTransform] to the direct graph. ]] to <http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/rdb2rdf/use-cases/#non-isomorphic>. I've also added an extensive editorial note outlining the requirement space implied by the later "requirement": [[ There are many types of graph transformation, representable by SQL views, SPARQL CONSTRUCTs, Horn logic, etc. The RDB2RDF workiing group would like feedback to decide if, for instance, the transformation expressed by RIF Basic Logic Dialect are appropriate. Use case contributions to this document will help determine the exact expressivity required. ]] > I'm sure that we don't need to go into deep detail for the use cases, but > I'm sure that this topic needs to be present. > Juan Sequeda > +1-575-SEQ-UEDA > www.juansequeda.com > -- -ericP office: +1.617.258.5741 mobile: +1.617.599.3509
Received on Friday, 23 April 2010 12:46:59 UTC