- From: ashok malhotra <ashok.malhotra@oracle.com>
- Date: Sat, 15 May 2010 09:49:22 -0700
- To: "public-rdb2rdf-wg@w3.org" <public-rdb2rdf-wg@w3.org>
- CC: "Ezzat, Ahmed" <Ahmed.Ezzat@hp.com>
I am reviewing the Requirements document and, I must admit, I too am confused by the three options? Does option 2 imply two mapping steps? This does not make sense. I see 2 options: 1. The ontology is derived from the RDB Schema and the primaryKey/ForeignKey relationships. 2. The ontology comes from somewhere else and the Relational Schema and data is mapped onto it. If you disagree, please motivate option 2 for me. I have other comments on the document but let's get this sorted out first. All the best, Ashok Ted Thibodeau Jr wrote: > *sighs* > > Here we go 'round again... > > > On May 14, 2010, at 01:35 AM, Ezzat, Ahmed wrote: > >> It sounds like the three options images are the same image? >> >> I missed the last meeting and what was discussed. >> > > May I suggest reviewing the minutes? They are imperfect as > always, but they do cover things reasonably well. > > http://www.w3.org/2010/05/11-rdb2rdf-minutes.html > > > >> 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. >> > > Option #1 is *NOT* a "special case" of #2, unless we all agree > that #3 is also -- in which case we should eliminate both #1 > and #3, and massively rewrite the document again. > > Option #2 is a progression from and embellishment of #1. > > As revised -- > > Option #1 is the most basic option -- just express my RDB Schema > as a local/pro-forma/putative RDF Ontology. > > Option #2 is the next complexity -- map that local RDF ontology > to other RDF ontologies, which might be new and specific to my > task, or might be in common use elsewhere, etc. > > Option #3 is a collapsed version of #2 -- a local ontology is > still involved (I believe, because it is a necessary stage in > the process), but it may never be seen by the user (and it may > never be acknowledged by the implementer), and they may only > want (or be able) to deal with the RDB Schema elements which > correspond directly with the desired target RDF ontologies. > > > I suggested the flip of previous #2 and #3, because of the (to > me) obvious progression described above which this flip makes > more visible. If that makes this subject to discussion once > again, then flip the order back -- but I really do not believe > that any of these three should be dropped from the presentation. > > > >> I suggest: >> >> 1. Local Ontology mapping + local-to-domain Ontology mapping >> · 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. >> > > Are you saying that no current products use my Option #1? You > are mistaken, if so. > > Be seeing you, > > Ted > > > > > > > >> 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 >> [3] http://userweb.cs.utexas.edu/~jsequeda/rdb2rdf/RDB2RDF_Option_3.jpg >> >> Juan Sequeda >> +1-575-SEQ-UEDA >> www.juansequeda.com >> > > -- > A: Yes. http://www.guckes.net/faq/attribution.html > | Q: Are you sure? > | | A: Because it reverses the logical flow of conversation. > | | | Q: Why is top posting frowned upon? > > Ted Thibodeau, Jr. // voice +1-781-273-0900 x32 > Evangelism & Support // mailto:tthibodeau@openlinksw.com > // http://twitter.com/TallTed > OpenLink Software, Inc. // http://www.openlinksw.com/ > 10 Burlington Mall Road, Suite 265, Burlington MA 01803 > http://www.openlinksw.com/weblogs/uda/ > OpenLink Blogs http://www.openlinksw.com/weblogs/virtuoso/ > http://www.openlinksw.com/blog/~kidehen/ > Universal Data Access and Virtual Database Technology Providers > > > > > >
Received on Saturday, 15 May 2010 16:51:50 UTC