- From: Lee Feigenbaum <lee@thefigtrees.net>
- Date: Mon, 26 Apr 2010 22:11:08 -0400
- To: Juan Sequeda <juanfederico@gmail.com>
- CC: public-rdb2rdf-wg@w3.org
On 4/26/2010 8:27 PM, Juan Sequeda wrote: > > The other two use cases, Exposing many-to-many join tables as simple > triples and Value based type specification, I honestly do not see > them as use cases, instead as a motivation for requirements. > Well, yes, they are use cases that drive certain requirements that I did not see explicitly covered by other use cases. To me, the primary goal of identifying use cases is to drive requirements. In turn, requirements drive a coherent and useful specification. Do I misunderstand the goal of this document? My organization's uses of this technology all fall broadly under the category of needing to expose RDB data to tools that consume data via arbitrary SPARQL queries. As such, I do not have one (or a fixed number) of schemas or scenarios that drive my requirements. Instead, I have expressivity, implementation, and tooling requirements, many of which are covered by other use cases, but some of which were not, and are instead covered by these two use cases. Is there a way in which these are deficient? Lee
Received on Tuesday, 27 April 2010 02:11:48 UTC