- From: Ezzat, Ahmed <Ahmed.Ezzat@hp.com>
- Date: Sun, 9 May 2010 05:26:13 +0000
- To: "public-rdb2rdf-wg@w3.org" <public-rdb2rdf-wg@w3.org>
- Message-ID: <3B7AE9BA67C72B4891EF21842246A21C886D3B38E8@GVW1097EXB.americas.hpqcorp.net>
Hi, Thanks for putting the effort in generating this document. Below is my feedback: 1. The use case section of the document looks fine. 2. The requirement section (3) needs work. Below are some comments: * New uncommon terminologies used which makes it difficult to read: putative, isomorphic, etc. Is isomorphic mapping is a requirement in our R2RML? People use today local + domain mapping and it works (uni-direction)? Is isomorphic requirements comes from future looking and expect the same mapping to be bi-directional (read/write to the DBMS) and hence isomorphic mapping makes sense? We need to discuss this one. * I thought a simple diagram like option-2 and option-3 in the diagram Juan sent out earlier seems reasonable to add. P.S. option-1 is a special case of option-3. * In the relevant community people use local and domain ontology; why we are not using these terms to make it easier for readers? * Why we are using graphs and labels terms vs RDF tuples and identifiers terms? * Section 3.1.4, I am not clear what we are trying to say regarding database connection? RDBMS has its own notion and I suspect in SPARQL there is well defined notion of end point. Is the mapping language is involved in mapping RDBMS connections? * Section 3.1.5 (MicroParsing): I assume the editor is referring to using RDBMS UDF for transformation processing. This seems an implementation detail and should not be included in mapping language specification or requirement? * Section 3.1.6 (TableParsing): I am not clear on this one - did it mean table mapped UDF? It looks like implementation detail and should not be part of mapping language requirements? * Section 3.1.7 (NamedGraph): I am not clear? Do we mean a query can return multiple graphs similar t JDBC returning multiple result sets? Needs clarification, but look this section after clarification needs to move to Section 3.2 as non-core requirements. 3. I suggest replacing current hybrid list of editors and authors with two lists: * Authors: this should refer to all RDB2RDF group members listed in alphabetic order * Editors: Eric and Michael 4. Finally, in few hours I am traveling in a business trip and I will be back to the Bay Area late Wed. evening. I will miss this Tuesday meeting (regrets). If Eric or Michale can handle this session - thanks. I suggest the team to discuss input from all including the above points. Hope Editors would capture/address the above issues and others, and generate a new version for final review. Let us not rush and go out week or so earlier. I will be very busy in this trip and will not be able to respond to emails next week at least a day or so after I come back. Regards, Ahmed Ahmed K. Ezzat, Ph.D. HP Fellow, Strategic Innovation Architecture Manager, Business Intelligence Software Division Hewlett-Packard Corporation 11000 Wolf Road, Bldg 42 Upper, MS 4502, Cupertino, CA 95014-0691 Office: Email: Ahmed.Ezzat@hp.com<mailto:Ahmed.Ezzat@hp.com> Off: 408-447-6380 Fax: 1408796-5427 Personal: Email: AhmedEzzat@aol.com<mailto:AhmedEzzat@aol.com> Tel: 408-253-5062 Fax: 408-253-6271
Attachments
- image/jpeg attachment: Bitmap_Image_1.jpg
Received on Sunday, 9 May 2010 05:31:22 UTC