- From: Juan Sequeda <juanfederico@gmail.com>
- Date: Fri, 15 Oct 2010 09:19:36 -0500
- To: Eric Prud'hommeaux <eric@w3.org>
- Cc: Richard Cyganiak <richard@cyganiak.de>, Souri Das <Souripriya.Das@oracle.com>, "ashok.malhotra@oracle.com" <ashok.malhotra@oracle.com>, RDB2RDF WG <public-rdb2rdf-wg@w3.org>
We should have a glossary Juan Sequeda www.juansequeda.com On Oct 15, 2010, at 8:56 AM, Eric Prud'hommeaux <eric@w3.org> wrote: > * Richard Cyganiak <richard@cyganiak.de> [2010-10-15 13:21+0100] >> Juan, >> >> On 14 Oct 2010, at 20:09, Juan Sequeda wrote: >>>> The output graph has to contain information that's in the >>>> database tables. >>>> So the tables themselves have to be part of the input. >>>> >>> >>> A relational schema consists of tables. >> >> You are right (and so is Ashok), and I was wrong. >> >> In my head, a “schema” is something that describes the structure of >> some data, and is distinct from the “actual” data. That's how the >> term is used in “XML Schema” and “RDF Schema”. >> >> But having started to read the actual definitions of terms in the >> SQL spec, I now realize that a “SQL-schema” is indeed not just a >> collection of *table definitions*, but a collection of *tables* (and >> other stuff), consisting of columns and rows. So a SQL-schema >> includes the actual data. > > Huh, popular interpretation (as measured by g:"sql schema") seems to > follow your interpretation. Given this intuition mismatch, could you > cite the bit of the SQL spec which appears to align more with what > dbpedia calls Oracle's "Schmea object" > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schema_object > than with "Database schema" > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Database_schema > ? > > >> I will update the draft to reflect that. >> >> Sorry for the noise caused by my confusion. A bit embarrassing. > > I guess we've all learned a little lesson about the consistency of terms. > > >> Best, >> Richard > > -- > -ericP
Received on Friday, 15 October 2010 14:21:05 UTC