Re: RDB2RDF: a picture is worth a thousand words

Thanks, Juan. The new images are much clearer. (Option 3 is what I 
thought the original Option 1 was depicting.)

Lee

On 5/10/2010 12:06 AM, Juan Sequeda wrote:
> Hi Lee
>
> I updated the options and they can be found here [1]
>
> [1] http://userweb.cs.utexas.edu/~jsequeda/rdb2rdf/
>
> I'll go through your comments and then add some more in another email
>
>
> On Tue, May 4, 2010 at 11:11 AM, Lee Feigenbaum <lee@thefigtrees.net
> <mailto:lee@thefigtrees.net>> wrote:
>
>     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?
>
>
> Are you suggesting that the local ontology be transformed by the user
> with the mapping language? Given the direct mapping and the local
> ontology, you would like to change the ontology and therefore also
> changing the mapping? If so, are these changes done with our mapping
> language or with SPARQL queries/ RIF/etc?
>
> Option 1 is Eric's Isomorphic case and what I'm calling Direct Mapping.
> The objective is that the RDF graph is basically equal to the relational
> schema (a binary relation becomes a property). So that is why I'm
> showing only a User Specified 1:1 name substitution. If there is a
> change to the graph, then it is not not isomorphic-direct.
>
> With Option 1, it is straightforward to automatically do the direct
> mapping, therefore the labels are generated automatically. Hence the
> need to do the 1:1 name substitution.
>
>
>     In Option 1, are we saying that the optional stuff on the RHS would
>     be left unspecified by this group?
>
>
> No. Optional if a user uses an automatic method and decides to leave the
> labels with the automatic ones generated.
>
>
>     In Option 2, why are we starting with "Transform" rather than
>     "Relational Schema"?
>
>
> This was a typo
>
>     In Option 2, what does the arrow going from "Domain Ontology" up to
>     the "transform / non-isomorphic" arrow represent?
>
>
> this was a bad design decision. In the new Option 2, I show the
> relational database and how it should be mapped to a domain ontology and
> how the RDF graph should look.
>
>
>     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?
>
>
> I'm not sure what you mean here, but hopefully with the new images, it
> can answer your questions.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>     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>
>         <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>
>         <http://www.juansequeda.com>
>
>

Received on Monday, 10 May 2010 04:39:49 UTC