Re: Comments on Requirements and Usecase Document

Ok.

I will try to be on the call tomorrow, even though I'm on travel

If I can't make it, I hope this will be on the agenda. I will be on irc

Juan Sequeda
+1-575-SEQ-UEDA
www.juansequeda.com


On Mon, May 24, 2010 at 9:55 AM, Harry Halpin <hhalpin@w3.org> wrote:

> > Hi Everbody,
> >
> > What is the process if for example Ashok recommends changing/dropping
> > something, and somebody else disagrees with that? How are we going to
> > avoid going back and forth between this. Honestly, I do not agree with
> > several things that Ashok suggests. Here I go, being as precise as
> > possible (I will be sending another email with my precise suggestions of
> > changes):
> >
>
> Thanks! The process for is if Ahsok recommends changing dropping or
> changing text and it's substantial (i.e. dropping 1.1 and 1.2) then it
> should be discussed by the group. The judge of whether or not a change is
> substantial is usually in the hands of the editor(s), but if a change is
> judged as substantial by one of the members of the WG (as you have done
> rather well in the e-mail below) then it should be discussed by the
> editor. So if Michael does not bring these changes up tomorrow for
> discussion, please step in and do so.
>
> > - Why drop 1.1. and 1.2? Don't we need a motivation? This has been on the
> > document for more than 1 month and nobody else has suggested to drop it.
> I
> > recommend that this should stay because we need to have a motivation.
> > - This is a working draft, so instead of dropping the glossary in 1.4, I
> > would add more terms and leave the definitions blank for now. This will
> > show the whole world that 1) we know that there are specific terms that
> we
> > need to define and 2) we are on our way to define them
> > - 2. Use Cases: Ashok suggests to change this completely into two
> > different classifications (which actually seem to be four: map to sql
> > schema derived ontology, map to domain ontology, materialize RDF and
> store
> > and finally virtual mapping to allow SPARQL2SQL). These are requirements.
> > I suggest to leave this section as-is. My reason is that somebody who
> will
> > read this document will be attracted to one or maybe even all of these
> > possibilities. For example, a company may be interested in just the
> > possibility of using RDB2RDF because they want to integrate their RDBs.
> > - At the end of UC1, Ashok recommends to add a new requirements
> > ·       Mapping column names to RDF property names e.g. in 2.1.4
> > DaysToTake is mapped to hl7:durationInDays
> >
> >   if we add this requirement, then shouldn't we also add that we should
> > map a table name to a RDFS/OWL class? There is an MANY-to-MANY
> > requirement where essentially we are mapping a table to a property also.
> >
> > - UC2: I believe that Ashok's suggestions are wrong. The wordpress
> example
> > is not mapping to a RDF Schema derived from the Relational Schema.The
> > use-case says "a mapping should be able to reuse existing vocabularies"
> If
> > I'm not wrong, this use-case maps to SIOC, DublinCore, FOAF. Furthermore,
> > where does it state that this use-case is for ETL? This use-case uses
> > Triplfy which actually creates a virtual RDF graph.
> >
> > BTW, all of the use-cases could support ETL if needed, right? I do not
> see
> > one specific use-case that is just for ETL.
> >
> > - Section 3, Approaches. I would like to know who thinks this needs to be
> > removed. As I have mentioned before, I created these images so we could
> > internally get on the same page. I wasn't expecting this to get into the
> > doc. However, seeing this now in the document, I believe adds context in
> > how the mappings can generated.
> >
> > This is what I have up to now. I will be sending another email will all
> my
> > precise suggested changes.
> >
> > Cheers
> >
> >
> >
> > On May 19, 2010, at 5:44 PM, ashok malhotra wrote:
> >
> >> See attached Word file.
> >> --
> >> All the best, Ashok
> >> <Requirements and UseCases.doc>
> >
> >
>
>