Re: Review of the the DM pre CR version (Re: Final round of Direct Mapping spec changes; please review to prepare for CR)

On Tue, Jan 24, 2012 at 1:11 PM, Juan Sequeda <juanfederico@gmail.com> wrote:
> Ivan,
>
> I've addressed your
> comments: http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/rdb2rdf/directMapping/LC/Overview.html
>
> Comments in-line
>
>
> On Sun, Jan 22, 2012 at 6:27 AM, Ivan Herman <ivan@w3.org> wrote:
>>
>> Juan, Eric, Alexandre,
>>
>> there are some editorial issues for all three of you below:-)
>>
>> (B.t.w, It is a little bit disturbing that the date still says 20
>> September 2011 and the copyright statement is set to 2010... (The latter
>> should be changed before publication...). The CVS log made it clear at the
>> end of the document that I am looking at the right document:-))
>>
>
> I'll leave this to Eric
>
>>
>>
>> - I think that for a final review leading to the CR, we should also see
>> the Status of Document session. Or is it so that the Status will only be the
>> boilerplate text for a CR generated by the tools you use for the
>> publication? (I would expect that to be the case, but we should know...)
>>
>
> I'll leave this to Eric
>
>>
>> - First sentence in Section 2. This is really just being knit-picking, and
>> not being a relational database expert: is 'SQL Database' the right term? My
>> understanding is that there is a notion of a Relational Database, and SQL is
>> a query/definition language thereof.
>
>
> Fine by me. R2RML uses the term "relational database". We should be
> consistent, so I changed it.
>
>
>>
>> - Section 2.1.
>>
>>  SQL example, first table creation: "ID' -> "ID" (double vs. single quote)
>
>
> Done
>>
>>
>>  Again my SQL knowledge... at the last telco we decided to put a quote
>> around identifier to get around the character casing problem. Shouldn't ID
>> be in quotes in the argument of PRIMARY KEY(ID) as well (note that the same
>> statement is quoted in the text after the SQL portion where ID is in
>> quotes)? The same question for the INSERT statements.
>>
>
> Also added missing quotes in another example.
>
> Not sure about the INSERT statements... somebody?
>
>>
>>  Also, is it intentional that sometimes single and sometimes double quotes
>> are used? If the two are interchangeable, I would propose to be consistent
>> within the examples
>
>
> I only see single quotes in the INSERT statements. Can somebody confirm if
> this is ok?
>>
>>
>>  There is '.' missing after the @base statements in the Turtle example in
>> 2.1
>
>
> Done
>>
>>
>>  The last paragraph of the section says:
>>
>>  [[[
>>  note however that it is not known how to relate the behaviour of the
>> obtained RDF
>>  graph with the standard SQL semantics of the NULL values of the source
>> RDB. For
>>  a detailed discussion of this issue, see a forthcoming working group
>> note.
>>  ]]]
>>
>>  Is this note really forthcoming? At the moment, we do not know whether it
>> will happen. I guess it would be safer not to have a reference to a
>> publication that may not materialize, ie, just remove the last sentence.
>
>
> This is a note that I have planned to write with Marcelo. Remember the
> hundreds of emails on this topic... if I recall, the resolution was to add
> those two sentences to the spec. Michael, can you confirm?
>>
>>
>> - Section 2.2
>>
>>   SQL example, the PRIMARY KEY(ID) appears (without quotes) in the second
>> creation statement and with quotes in the first...
>
>
> Done
>>
>>
>>   The '.' is missing after @base in the Turtle example.
>
>
> Done
>>
>>
>>   There is a superfluous ';' character in the Turtle example:
>> <Department/ID-23> <Department#manager> 8; .
>
>
> Done
>
>>
>>
>> - Section 2.5
>>
>>   SQL example: is there a reason for the tabulation that puts everything
>> but "lead" and "worker" on a deeper level? I guess this is and editorial bug
>>
>>   I had difficulties understanding the example here. First of all, it may
>> be worth to make it clear that this example refers back to the example in
>> Section 2.2. But the slightly convoluted nature of unique keys, the fact
>> that they overlap (see the table) makes it a little bit difficult to follow.
>>
>>   I wonder whether it would not help to remove the references to the
>> Department table (at least from TaskAssignments). It does not bring anything
>> at this point to the user, just creates confusion...
>
>
> I'll leave this to Eric
>
>>
>> A.4 Denotational semantics, using the set-notation, rules [36] and [38]:
>>
>>     [36] says:
>>
>>     IRI(UE(R.name) + "/ref-" + (join('.', UE(A.name) + "-" + UE(A.value))
>> ∣ A ∈ As ))
>>
>>   is this correct? This rule establishes the URI for a row, but that
>> should not include the 'ref-' string. That is for the reference predicate...
>>
>>     On the other hand, shouldn't the '#ref-' appear in rule [38] instead?
>> Note that the English description of that rule misses the reference to
>> '#ref-', too.
>>
>>    The same errors seem to appear in the set-builder notation, too.
>
>
> I'll leave this to Eric
>
>>
>>
>> B. Rules, General remark: I am not sure what is happening, but the fonts
>> used in the formulae in this appendix seem to be different than the ones in
>> the informative section or Appendix A. I am getting old, but I find the
>> formulae much less readable as a result than in the previous sections.
>
>
> You are right. The font was smaller. I increased it
>>
>>
>> B. Rules, B.2, generating Literal Triples:
>>
>>    Is there a missing a rule predicate that accounts for the
>> transformation of a cell value into a possibly typed literal value? The way
>> I read the rules in B.2.1 and B.2.2 is that the cell value is taken verbatim
>> as the object of the literal triples which does not seem to be correct.
>> Maybe I miss something, in which case an explanation in the text may be a
>> good idea...
>
>
> Thanks for finding this :)
>
> We added a built in predicate generateTypedLiteral

I made some small changes/corrections in the definitions of
generateTypedLiteral and the rules that use this built-in predicate.

Cheers,

Marcelo


>>
>>
>> Thanks for all the work!
>>
>> Ivan
>>
>> On Jan 20, 2012, at 17:33 , Juan Sequeda wrote:
>>
>> > All,
>> >
>> > On behalf of the editors, we believe that the Direct Mapping it is ready
>> > for CR.
>> >
>> > The current Editor's draft can be found:
>> > http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/rdb2rdf/directMapping/LC/Overview.html
>> >
>> > Cheers
>> >
>> > Juan Sequeda
>> > +1-575-SEQ-UEDA
>> > www.juansequeda.com
>>
>>
>> ----
>> Ivan Herman, W3C Semantic Web Activity Lead
>> Home: http://www.w3.org/People/Ivan/
>> mobile: +31-641044153
>> FOAF: http://www.ivan-herman.net/foaf.rdf
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>

Received on Tuesday, 24 January 2012 16:38:00 UTC