Re: Comments on Use Case for discussion on telcon

On Mon, Apr 26, 2010 at 10:11 PM, Lee Feigenbaum <lee@thefigtrees.net>wrote:

> 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?
>
>
The other use cases do not specifically express that you need to expose
many-to-many join tables as simple triples or value base type specification,
but I'm sure that it will be part of the whole approach. I can assure you
that in one of our papers we give the semantics of translating a
many-to-many join table as triples.


> 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, I propose that you write a use-case that your company has and this may
lead into a scenario 5.

>
> Lee
>