回复：feedback on the current Use case & Requirements for RDB2RDF...

My comments. Thanks.

Section 2 (Use Cases): 
 
Maybe, we can add a short paragraph to illustrate that more 
examples from existing papers or projects which fall into the three categories 
shown here can be found. Readers can find more details of similar examples from 
given references.
 
The first paragraph of section 2. If we do not have any concrete use case 
to illustrate the 3rd category (integrating RDB with unstructured data), it is 
better to remove this category.
 
Section 2.3, use case 3. What are traditional RDB2RDF 
translation methods? It is better to add some references.

Best regards,

Li Ma
----- 鍘熷�嬮偖浠� -----
鍙戜欢浜猴細Ezzat, Ahmed <Ahmed.Ezzat@hp.com>
鏀朵欢浜猴細public-rdb2rdf-wg@w3.org <public-rdb2rdf-wg@w3.org>
涓婚�橈細feedback on the current Use case & Requirements for RDB2RDF...
鏃ユ湡锛�2010-5-9 13:26:13





 
Hi,
 
Thanks for putting the effort in generating this document.  Below is my feedback:
 

The use case section of the document looks fine. 


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 鈥� 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.




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 orderEditors: Eric and Michael




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 Off:
408-447-6380  Fax: 1408796-5427



Personal: Email:
AhmedEzzat@aol.com Tel:
408-253-5062  Fax:  408-253-6271