Re: please read before participating in translation scheme debate [Re: Translating DB values to RDF terms using 1) R2RML views and 2) using R2RML-native translation scheme]

David:
In the last exchange of messages between Kingsley and Souri it was pointed out that we
did not require a special mechanism in R2RML for mapping tables;  SQL views could be
used to do that.    So, perhaps, all we need to do is provide a non-normative example of how
a SQL view can be used to provide a mapping facility and move on.

This has the advantage of not adding a feature to the spec thereby keeping it simpler.
It also avoids another Last Call.
All the best, Ashok

On 12/15/2011 5:29 AM, David McNeil wrote:
> My understanding is that since adding translation tables to R2RML is a substantive change to the spec it would require restarting the Last Call cycle. Therefore I think the first step in discussing the feature is to decide as a group whether we are willing to do that (do we even have time to do that under our charter?). Personally I think we should try to avoid going back to another Last Call. I think the right thing to do is to push forward towards getting a more basic R2RML 1.0 spec out. (Note: this is not a statement about the usefulness of translation tables, rather I think there are many useful features which will not appear in R2RML 1.0)
>
> Therefore unless/until the working group decides that we are going to restart the Last Call cycle, my choice is to spend my time and efforts on:
>
> * reviewing the other last call comments
> * making sure they are well reflected in the latest spec
> * refining the core parts of the spec that we agree need improvement
>
> This last point is significant to me because my sense is that there is agreement among the working group that core parts of the spec need improvement and all we lack is time to do it. Then I think by all means we should focus on refining and clarifying the core spec rather than debate new features which are clearly contentious and which would require us to regress in the process rather than progress.
>
> -David
>
>
>

Received on Thursday, 15 December 2011 14:03:23 UTC