- From: Juan Sequeda <juanfederico@gmail.com>
- Date: Fri, 14 May 2010 00:53:05 -0500
- To: "Ezzat, Ahmed" <Ahmed.Ezzat@hp.com>
- Cc: "public-rdb2rdf-wg@w3.org" <public-rdb2rdf-wg@w3.org>
- Message-ID: <AANLkTinQ-Bakbtm449trJ7hl1JQlzg_Vtdi7jDrUmuVk@mail.gmail.com>
Ahmed, I agree that Option 1 is a subset of Option 2. However Option 1 tackles the specific case when no domain ontology is involved. However, we can just use two images (Option 2 and Option 3) and explicitly state that in Option 2 there is a possibility of just generating the Local Ontology and not involving the domain ontology. That is fine by me. What does everybody else think? Juan Sequeda +1-575-SEQ-UEDA www.juansequeda.com On Fri, May 14, 2010 at 12:35 AM, Ezzat, Ahmed <Ahmed.Ezzat@hp.com> wrote: > > > Juan, > > > > It sounds like the three options images are the same image? > > > > I missed the last meeting and what was discussed. In your list, Option-1 > is a special case of Option-2; I questions its value but we can leave it as > a special case of Option-2 in your current list. > > > > I suggest: > > > > 1. Local Ontology mapping + local-to-domain Ontology mapping > > ยท Local Ontology mapping only (option) > > 2. DB Schema to Domain ontology direct mapping > > > > If you look at many current products they typically use option-1 above. > > > > 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 > > > > > > *From:* public-rdb2rdf-wg-request@w3.org [mailto: > public-rdb2rdf-wg-request@w3.org] *On Behalf Of *Juan Sequeda > *Sent:* Thursday, May 13, 2010 9:18 PM > *To:* public-rdb2rdf-wg@w3.org > *Subject:* Images of RDB2RDF options updated > > > > Hi Everybody > > > > Ted and I have updated the images that depict the three different RDB2RDF > options. > > > > [1] Option 1: Direct Mapping (no domain ontology involved > > [2] Option 2: Direct Mapping + Ontology to Ontology Mapping > > [3] Option 3: Database to Ontology Mapping (no visible local ontology > > > > Please note that the current Option 3 was the old Option 2 (and vice-versa) > > > > Let me know if there are questions > > > > Cheers > > > > [1] http://userweb.cs.utexas.edu/~jsequeda/rdb2rdf/RDB2RDF_Option_1.jpg > > [2] http://userweb.cs.utexas.edu/~jsequeda/rdb2rdf/RDB2RDF_Option_2.jpg<http://userweb.cs.utexas.edu/~jsequeda/rdb2rdf/RDB2RDF_Option_1.jpg> > > [3] http://userweb.cs.utexas.edu/~jsequeda/rdb2rdf/RDB2RDF_Option_3.jpg<http://userweb.cs.utexas.edu/~jsequeda/rdb2rdf/RDB2RDF_Option_1.jpg> > > > Juan Sequeda > +1-575-SEQ-UEDA > www.juansequeda.com >
Received on Friday, 14 May 2010 05:53:38 UTC