Re: Start discussion

On 3/21/2010 8:26 PM, Juan Sequeda wrote:
> Hi Everybody,
> There has been no discussion at all on the list, and that honestly
> worries me.

I share this concern, which is one reason that I decided to join the 
group and try to add what I can.

> I know that we need to have a Use Case documents, but it is not
> completely clear to me what else we need to turn in and by when.
> One issue that I personally feel than needs to be settled is the
> semantics of the language. One we have this defined, it is just a matter
> of deciding on what is the syntax. I don't think we have made much
> progress on this issue. I have proposed to develop the semantics of the
> mapping language in datalog. I'd be up for working on this in
> conjunction with Marcelo Arenas and Dan Miranker.

Ideally, I'd hope that the semantics of the language follow from the 
requirements which follow from the use cases.

As far as datalog, I know next to nothing about it, so my questions are 
probably naive. Is there a datalog standard that we will be able to 
normatively reference if the semantics of the language are given in 

Also, I'm not sure if separating the syntax & semantics is definitely an 
easy thing to do. I know that there are people on the group who advocate 
that the mapping language be based on SPARQL CONSTRUCT queries combined 
with a default mapping from the relational model to the RDF model. In 
this case, I imagine it would make more sense to lean on the SPARQL 


> What else should we be having discussions on? The clock is ticking.
> Juan Sequeda
> +1-575-SEQ-UEDA
> <>

Received on Monday, 22 March 2010 00:51:49 UTC