Re: review request for http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/rdb2rdf/use-cases/

Section 2.3, use case 3.:
 traditional RDB2RDF translation methods ADD LINK to
http://esw.w3.org/images/a/ac/Rdb2RdfXG$$StateOfTheArt$RDB2RDF_SurveyReport.pdf

Thanks for all the help and comments...
Angela.

On Tue, May 11, 2010 at 5:51 PM, Harry Halpin <hhalpin@w3.org> wrote:
> Here's a very long of minor grammatical changes and some clarifying points
> with suggested text. The editors are welcome to take these points or leave
> them, but I think taking them on board would lead to a better use-case
> document.
>
> The general form is "text string in current doc -> new improved text string"
> with occasional clarifying notes proceeded by a CAPITALIZED word and then
> sometimes minor changes having asteriks around them in "text string". The
> point is for the editor to be able to easily s/oldstring/newstring in
> their favorite text editor for XMLSpec.
>
> Minor edits:
> - Enterprise -> enterprise
>
> - requirements for a relational to RDF mapping with ->  requirements for
> mapping relational data to RDF with
>
> - beforementioned use cases -> aforementioned use cases
>
> - The Web of Data is constantly growing due to its compelling potential of
> facilitating data integration and retrieval. -> The Web of Data deployes
> RDF to expose structured and hetereogenous data on the Web, as RDF has the
> compelling potential to facilitate open-ended data integration and
> retrieval.
> NOTE: We need to clarify the use of term "Web of Data" and "Semantic Web".
> I'd just say, use "Web of Data" and avoid using term "Semantic Web" if
> possible. Since we are taking on Google's point that while Linked Data is
> growing, it's still fairly small compared to the Web, and also taking on
> Microsoft's point that the Web of Data does not necessarily involve RDF,
> so trying to be clear about what we are doing here.
>
> - DELETE "since they follow an Open World Assumption".
> NOTE: Not sure if that's true, as it depends on what means by "powerful",
> especially re formal expressivity of SPARQL and SQL :) I'd say "more
> useful" as opposed to "powerful" if you want to keep reference to Open
> World Assumption.
>
> - Data in the Web should be defined -> RDF data on the Web should be defined
>
> - "for examples in Extract, transform, and load (ETL) processes" -> "for
> example in Extract, Transform, and Load (ETL) processes"
>
> - of proposals how to tackle  -> of proposals *on* how to tackle
>
>
> - For example, imagine that a database administrator is working on
> exposing weather data as Linked Data to be consumed by other applications.
> At first, this weather data is stored in a light-weight database (such as
> MySQL).
> -> For example, imagine that a database administrator is exposing weather
> data as Linked Data to be consumed by other applications. At first, this
> weather data is stored in a light-weight database (such as MySQL).
> DELETE "is working on"
>
> -  Another motivation for a standard is that for certain classes of
> systems (such as CMS) a 'default' mapping could be defined which can be
> deployed no matter what underlying RDB is used
> NOTE: addresses Editorial note.
>
>
> -  Another motivation for a standard is that for certain classes of
> systems (such as CMS) a 'default' mapping could be defined which can be
> deployed no matter what underlying RDB is used.
> ADD As these systems, such as @@X, can some times be run on top of
> different underlying relational databases, a standardized way of mapping
> between relational data and RDF allows the underlying database to be
> changed (say from @@Y to @@Z) without disturbing the content management
> system.
> NOTE:  addresses Editorial note, but What exact content management systems
> allow this? Drupal? To my knowledge very few CMS systems outside Drupal
> ues RDF in any substantial way.
>
> -other RDB, XLS, CSV, etc. -> as other relational databases, spreadsheets,
> CSV files
>
> - (HTML, PDF, etc) -> RDF dervied automatically or semi-automatically from
> the text in HTML, PDF, feeds, etc.)
>
> - (HTML, PDF, etc) -> (HTML, PDF, etc.)
> NOTE: Please s/etc/etc. throughout document
>
> -(structured, rdf, unstructured) -> (structured, *RDF*, unstructured)
>
> 2.1 UC1-Patient Recuritment
>
> - "While there are many motivations for providing a common interface to
> administratively distinct databases (access to patient history, shared
> rules for clinical decision support, etc), in this case, SPARQL queries
> (following the table description) were used to find candidates for
> clinical studies." should be first sentence.
>
> - ADD SENTENCE EXPLAINING WHAT PATIENT RECRUITMENT IS
>
> - each table is are two RDF views  -> each table are two RDF views
> DELETE "is"
>
> - data structures -> data structures.
> ADD PERIOD
>
> - Why blank middle name in 2.1.1?
>
> - DELETE "The RDF graphs place the relational data into the Semantic Web.
> There are many ways to consume RDF data, integration with other data
> sources, inference according to OWL or RIF rules, browsing with a linked
> data browser like Bubbles or Tabulator." REDUNDANT.
>
> -materialised -> materialized
> NOTE: DECIDE ON AMERICAN OR BRITISH ENGLISH
>
> 2.2 UC2
>
> - s/Semantic Web/Web of Data
>
> - (e.g. Wikis, Blogs, Fora) -> (wikis, blogs, forums)
>
> - will facilitate broad penetration and enrich the Web with RDF data and
> ontologies and facilitate novel -> will  facilitate novel
>
> - DELETE "will facilitate broad penetration and enrich the Web with RDF
> data and ontologies and" since verb 'facilitate' is used twice and not
> sure enriching the Web by itself with RDF and OWL is really a use-case, as
> use-cases should be technology independent.
>
> - Web 2.0 applications the-> Web 2.0 applications, the
> ADD COMMA
>
> - To support this usecase scenario, the mapping language -> To support
> this use case, the mapping language
> DELETE scenario
>
> -REMOVE BOLD a shallow learning curve to foster early adoption by Web
> developers.
> NOTE: We don't use it anywhere else.
>
> - Wordpress_27_schema.png IS TOO SMALL TO READ
>
> -post, attachment, tag, category, user and comment -> ADD <CODE> TAGS TO
> post, attachment, tag, category. An example instance of the post class,->
> of the <CODE>post</CODE> class
>
> - Let's use same background color as in UC1 in UC2, and remove hyperlinks
> in turtle code.
>
> 2.3 UC3 - Integrating Enterprise Relational databse
>
> - NOTE: This use-case eems to to have a strange structure, let's normalize
> it.
>
> - DELETE "Responsible: Angela Fogarolli"
>
> - DELETE "Goal:" and s/PROBLEM:/The re-use of unique identifiers allows:
>
> - Integrating relational databases and exposing them on the web or
> intranet based on the final RDB2RDF XG 1.1.3 and 1.1.2 use cases ) through
> the use of unique identifiers. This approach consist of integrating  and
> interlinking data about entities on different databases. ->
>
> - Integrating relational databases and exposing them on the web or
> intranet requires the re-use of unique identifiers in order to integrate
> and interlink data about entities on different databases.
>
> - Join between -> Joins between
>
> - Join structured data (SQL) to structured data, from incompatible schema
> -> Join structured relational data  to structured data from incompatible
> schema
>
> REMOVE "Requirements:" and the three bullet points below it, those have
> already been talked about.
>
> REMOVE "Use Case Description:" heading
>
> - People and -> people and
>
> -their on information systems ->  their own information systems
>
> - buildings etc. ->  buildings, etc.
>
> - REMOVE , and other sources.
> NOTE: Not sure what that means
>
> - With our methodology we will provide -> The re-use of unique identifiers
> will provide
>
> - In this way we are  providing the user, a tax agent in our case an
> intelligent tool for navigating through the data present in the many
> different databases. The tool aggregates data and creates a profile for
> each tax payer-> In this way we are providing a tax agent an intelligent
> tool for navigating through the data present in the many different
> databases. Using unique identifiers, a tool can aggregate data and creates
> a profile for each tax payer
>
> FIX COMMA SPACING Each user profile shows different type of information ,
> with links to other entities such as the buildings owned , payments made ,
> location of residence etc.->Each user profile shows different type of
> information, with links to other entities such as the buildings owned,
> payments made, location of residence, and so on.
>
> - (Anagrafe and Urban_Cadastre)->(<code>Anagrafe</code> and
> <code>Urban_Cadastre</code>)
>
> - includs the information-> includes the information
>
> - (person’s residence place) -> (*a* person's residence place)
>
> -other information which are not properties of persons or locations->
> other information.
> DELETE EXCESSIVE which..
>
> -Put DDL in a normal file, not picture, and then link offline.->Using
> RDB2RDF translation methods without unique identifiers, the RDF
> representation for the two example tables coming from two different
> databases is shown below:
>
> -Please convert the RDF/XML code to N-triples
>
> -In SQL, there is no way to create a query which joins data of two tables
> coming from different databases. For solving the identity problem which is
> required by the use case creating a RDF representation is not enough. The
> use case demands the use of unique identifier to refer to entities in
> order to join descriptions about the same entity coming from different
> datasources. ->If we wanted to query these two tables, we would have to
> create a unique identifier - such as
> <code>http://www.example.org/Paolo_Bouquet</code>  for Paolo Bouquet - to
> refer to entities in order to join descriptions about the same entity
> coming from different data sources.
>
> 2.4 UC4
>
> -DELETE hyperlinked "rCAD - RNA Comparative Analysis using SQLServer:"
>
> -Put hyperlink here "implemented the RNA Comparative Analysis Database -rCAD"
>
> -DELETE " The rCAD consists of different schema: Sequence Metadata,
> Evolutionary Relationships, Structural Relationships and Sequence
> Alignment."
> NOTESentence seems odd and out of place.
>
> Rest of UC4 and document minor edits to be sent after telecon...
>
>
>
>
>
>

Received on Tuesday, 11 May 2010 16:16:24 UTC