- From: Lee Feigenbaum <lee@thefigtrees.net>
- Date: Tue, 04 May 2010 12:11:12 -0400
- To: Juan Sequeda <juanfederico@gmail.com>
- CC: public-rdb2rdf-wg@w3.org
I don't understand a couple of things in the diagram. In Option 1, presumably "user specified name substitution" could be far more than just name substitution? It could be transformational (via, e.g. SPARQL queries or RIF rule sets or what not) to reach the end state ontology? In Option 1, are we saying that the optional stuff on the RHS would be left unspecified by this group? In Option 2, why are we starting with "Transform" rather than "Relational Schema"? In Option 2, what does the arrow going from "Domain Ontology" up to the "transform / non-isomorphic" arrow represent? Am I correct in understanding that Option 1 is a degenerate case of Option 2 in which the transform is obvious and isomorphic and in which "Ontology" ends up simply being the local/putative ontology? thanks, Lee On 5/4/2010 11:55 AM, Juan Sequeda wrote: > We would like to share this and see if we are all on the same page > > http://docs.google.com/drawings/pub?id=1de31u5wBUheygJTXbxXE7e7H7QI_is9hEXi5dOO5knE&w=960&h=720 > <http://docs.google.com/drawings/pub?id=1de31u5wBUheygJTXbxXE7e7H7QI_is9hEXi5dOO5knE&w=960&h=720> > > > > Juan Sequeda > +1-575-SEQ-UEDA > www.juansequeda.com <http://www.juansequeda.com>
Received on Tuesday, 4 May 2010 16:11:53 UTC