Re: R2RML examples and primer (was: Re: Editorial comments on R2RML)

Richard,

looking at the old document again (thanks for digging out the URI:-) I think the question is not whether the features in the appendix are covered elsewhere in the document or not. You are probably right that the Appendix in [1] did not bring anything new in this respect. But I am not sure that is really the issue, at least not for me. The advantage of Appendix A in [1] is that it pulls together the various R2RML features in some, slightly more complex and more real-life-looking examples, where I can really appreciate and see full-blown R2RML, with various features, instead of fractions spread all over the document. I believe that, didactically, this does make a difference.

Again, I would not go out of my way to have such an example be part of the Recommendation text. It is my personal preference, but if the WG decide otherwise, I am fine with that. But having such worked out examples _somewhere_ is, I believe, important for people to gain some flair of what R2RML does. And I am not sure that the test cases document is the right place for that, for reasons outlined below.

Cheers

Ivan


[1] http://www.w3.org/TR/2011/WD-r2rml-20110324/

On Nov 8, 2011, at 20:30 , Richard Cyganiak wrote:

> Hi Ivan,
> 
> (trimming cc list)
> 
> On 8 Nov 2011, at 08:57, Ivan Herman wrote:
>>> I think that the examples in Section 2 are sufficient and I don't think that adding further general examples as an appendix would improve the spec. All the features that were shown in those extended examples are used and explained in Section 2. If you feel that specific R2RML features lack sufficient examples, then please let us know and we'll consider it. However, I'd prefer to add small and tailored specific examples to the section that explains the feature, or perhaps to Section 2.
>> 
>> Well... I am fine with the examples being elsewhere, in this sense, the R2RML document is fine. However, from the point of view of the collection of documents at large, I am not sure I am fully happy with the choice of moving those examples into the test cases and only there. If I look at the test case document, it is aimed at implementer who, well, want to test. It has a bunch of entries there on review status, purpose, etc, which are obscuring things when I want to look at the examples simply as a means of learning R2RML (and Direct Mapping), ie, as some sort of a primer. I mean, the links to the expected results go to a mercurial archive file, which is again fine for implementers, but is again confusing for people wanting to learn that stuff!
>> 
>> I guess what I am looking for here is some sort of a primer document then, if the decision is not to put it into the core spec. But something is missing.
> 
> I understand the concerns about putting the examples into the test cases document.
> 
> The examples you mention are found in the old R2RML version here:
> 
> http://www.w3.org/TR/2011/WD-r2rml-20110324/#sec-example
> 
> The examples currently found in Section 2 are here:
> 
> http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/rdb2rdf/r2rml/#example-input-database
> 
> Can you explain what you find helpful in the old examples that isn't covered in the current ones?
> 
> Best,
> Richard


----
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