Re: Minutes from Nov 3 Telcon

Ah! Sorry, I misunderstood.

This is a tricky one. We could of course try to talk around it, and justify it, etc, but, frankly: I think the really proper answer is yes, this would lead to a second LC.

The point is that, according to [1], some in the Working Group consider that solution, while maybe viable, requiring a significant amount of technical work to fold it into the spec properly. Has this opinion (ie, Oracle's opinion) changed in this respect? Is it now considered as a trivial technical add-on to the current document? Is there a need for a thorough investigation on the technical consequences? If not, do we have that documented, ie, that this solution properly works? Because if the opinion still is that there is a serious technical work ahead on this then, well, that is a second Last Call indeed.

Sorry...

Ivan

[1] http://www.w3.org/2011/09/13-RDB2RDF-minutes.html

On Nov 4, 2011, at 16:49 , Richard Cyganiak wrote:

> Ivan,
> 
> On 4 Nov 2011, at 14:14, Ivan Herman wrote:
>>> Another question was that if we add a translation table capability to the spec will we
>>> require another Last call?
>> 
>> You mean the SQL->XSD translations?
> 
> No, this refers to the translation table feature in R2RML
> http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/rdb2rdf/wiki/Translation_Table_Proposal
> 
> You remember, I added a SKOS-based mechanism to the spec, and we took it out again immediately before Last Call because Oracle objected to the design and we didn't have time to find a middle ground. The lack of this feature was brought up in several LC comments, so we discussed whether we should re-open this, finish the feature, and add it to the spec.
> 
> The question is whether *that* would automatically require a second Last Call.
> 
> Best,
> Richard
> 
> 
>> I do not think so. Adding that table does not change the technical design, it just makes it more precise with some of the implicit features made explicit. Isn't that so? If yes, I do not see a reason to issue a second last call because of that...
>> 
>> Cheers
>> 
>> Ivan
>> 
>> 
>> 
>>> All the best, Ashok
>>> 
>>> On 11/4/2011 2:00 AM, Ivan Herman wrote:
>>>> I am sorry I could not participate, but I had problems with this late night participation...
>>>> 
>>>> I am not sure I fully understand the question related to me in the minutes, but I try to guess: would http://www.w3.org/ns/r2rml.html published as a W3C Rec, ie, in /TR?
>>>> 
>>>> Usually, working groups do not do that. Apart from the fact that there are editorial issues (well, pains:-) attached to such a move, there is also a practical one. I know we are 100% perfect people but, believe it or not, there may be errata in the future...:-) Experience tells that many of those errata are editorial, and may also involve also slight RDF(a) error in the schema (misspelled URI-s, wrong comments, that sort of things). Because machines may read the .rdf or .ttl files derived from the .html file, time for change is important here. If these documents are in /TR, there is no way of changing those, whereas if they are elsewhere, it can be changed through some sort of a controlled errata mechanism (that we will have to set up when the time comes). AFAIK, the only group that did put a schema under /TR was SKOS, and we had several issues with it afterwards.
>>>> 
>>>> So, my advise would be (if that was really the question, that is:-): let /ns/r2rml.html where it is, make it as perfect as we humanly can, but if later some error appears (of course, errors that do not change the core spec in /TR) than updating it becomes easier.
>>>> 
>>>> Ivan
>>>> 
>>>> On Nov 3, 2011, at 21:20 , ashok malhotra wrote:
>>>> 
>>>>> Are at http://www.w3.org/2011/11/03-RDB2RDF-minutes.html
>>>>> 
>>>>> We spent most of the time discussing comments from David
>>>>> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdb2rdf-comments/2011Oct/0022.html
>>>>> We resolved most of the issues David raised by wording changes in the spec.
>>>>> There are also 3 Actions re. wording changes.
>>>>> 
>>>>> In addition, there is an action to ask Ivan about whether the Schema is normative and
>>>>> whether it needs to be in a separate spec.  There is also an action on Richard to create a new issue.
>>>>> 
>>>>> After that we discussed other LC comments.  I have updated the wiki with the
>>>>> resolutions.   We should start with LC comment 5 on Tuesday.  We also need to start addressing
>>>>> the postponed issues.
>>>>> 
>>>>> We did not discuss any DM comments
>>>>> -- 
>>>>> All the best, Ashok
>>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> ----
>>>> Ivan Herman, W3C Semantic Web Activity Lead
>>>> Home: http://www.w3.org/People/Ivan/
>>>> mobile: +31-641044153
>>>> PGP Key: http://www.ivan-herman.net/pgpkey.html
>>>> FOAF: http://www.ivan-herman.net/foaf.rdf
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>> 
>> 
>> ----
>> Ivan Herman, W3C Semantic Web Activity Lead
>> Home: http://www.w3.org/People/Ivan/
>> mobile: +31-641044153
>> PGP Key: http://www.ivan-herman.net/pgpkey.html
>> FOAF: http://www.ivan-herman.net/foaf.rdf
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
> 
> 


----
Ivan Herman, W3C Semantic Web Activity Lead
Home: http://www.w3.org/People/Ivan/
mobile: +31-641044153
PGP Key: http://www.ivan-herman.net/pgpkey.html
FOAF: http://www.ivan-herman.net/foaf.rdf