- From: Alexandre Bertails <bertails@w3.org>
- Date: Fri, 08 Jul 2011 16:37:41 -0400
- To: Eric Prud'hommeaux <eric@w3.org>
- Cc: Richard Cyganiak <richard@cyganiak.de>, W3C RDB2RDF <public-rdb2rdf-wg@w3.org>
On Fri, 2011-07-08 at 15:48 -0400, Eric Prud'hommeaux wrote: > * Richard Cyganiak <richard@cyganiak.de> [2011-07-08 19:46+0100] > > Eric, > > > > On 8 Jul 2011, at 17:13, Eric Prud'hommeaux wrote: > > > I had > > > • DM implementors (database vendors or query-only wrappers) > > > • users (queriers and maybe updaters) > > > • RDF rules researchers and developers > > > in mind when I wrote <http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/rdb2rdf/directGraph/>. > > > > Would you include, say, students who implement the direct mapping as their first-year project in the target audience? > > yep > > > Does “users” include, say, domain experts who learned RDF but don't have a background in maths, logics or database theory? > > yep. they might not want to poke into the formal stuff, This "formal stuff" is actually very accessible, both the formalism itself and its syntax (we had many iterations on this subject). *All requirements* are in the document (at least for section 3.) and you clearly don't need a PhD to understand them. About "database theory": there is no requirement at all, as the document define entirely RDB. The credibility of this definition was ensured by the work of this Working Group as well as the researchers who proof-read our K-CAP paper, used to that king of stuff. So I can safely say that we made sure that the technical barrier was very low. > but the couple examples should allow them to predict the graph well enough to use it. > I'd say that the English version coming along each definition/rule is enough. The examples gives the idea of the mapping, but they are not enough if your want the mapping to be robust and exhaustive. For example, we know formally that the mapping goed through any RDB instance, thanks to the static checking in the Scala implementation. This is a requirement for a so-called mapping, and we have it for free (at least for section 3.). Alexandre. > > Question is to all editors. > > > > Best, > > Richard >
Received on Friday, 8 July 2011 20:37:52 UTC