Comments and suggestions regarding the 'A Direct Mapping of Relational Data to RDF'

Dear DM Editors,

I've read 'A Direct Mapping of Relational Data to RDF' [1] in the  
revision $Id: EGP.xml,v 1.5 2011/08/05 18:07:37 eric Exp $ and have  
the following comments and suggestions. Great job, so far and sorry  
for the late notice, I hope you still find time to address some bits  
till our call in 5h time ;)

+ In the beginning of the document (Abstract/SotD/Introduction) I  
would expect to find a sentence regarding the target audience. We have  
discussed this over and over again and I honestly do not care so much  
how you phrase it, but I insist on making this explicit, *pretty*  

+ It is hard to tell which sections are normative and which are  
informative as the policy is not explicitly stated (the ToC gives a  
hint, but it would be better to explicitly say something along the  
line: [[all sections not marked with 'Informative' are in fact  
normative sections]]

+ The 'Appendices' starts without a heads-up or explanation why this  
is here. A sentence to clarify what the purpose of A. and B. is and/or  
for whom this is relevant would increase the readability.

+ You have a number of issues listed inline. They should be linked to  
'real' issues in the tracker (currently I count three DM-related  
issues there, ISSUE-63, ISSUE-42 ISSUE-40, the rest have been  
postponed) and the deprecated ones should be removed - check against  

+ I often stumble upon sentences with a lot of brackets, such as from  
Sec. 3: [[An (addressable) SQL table has a set ...]]. Either the stuff  
in the bracket is important, then remove the bracket, or the stuff in  
the bracket is not important, then remove it at all.

+ Sec. A2 uses 'set' and 'multiset' without defining it. Now, one  
could argue everyone knows what a 'set' is (but why not just stating  
it, like: [[A set is an unordered collection of distinct items.]],  
however with the 'multiset' definition I dunno, this is not obvious I  
think. Unfortunately my mathematical inability prevents me from coming  
up with a clean definition, heck even our SPARQL WG colleagues resort  
to Wikipedia for this [3] - thanks Nuno for pointing this out - so all  
I can ask here is: please address this.

Other than that: great stuff, I like it very much and I hope after  
today's call the WG as a whole will acknowledge that this document is  
LC-ready, modulo minor polishing stuff.


Dr. Michael Hausenblas, Research Fellow
LiDRC - Linked Data Research Centre
DERI - Digital Enterprise Research Institute
NUIG - National University of Ireland, Galway
Ireland, Europe
Tel. +353 91 495730

Received on Tuesday, 9 August 2011 10:32:32 UTC