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

Eric,

[snip]

On Jan 26, 2012, at 20:39 , Eric Prud'hommeaux wrote:

[snip]

>> 
>> Let's remove the text. I don't have time to write this in the next month. However, I will get it done :)
> 
> Noting Marcelo's consent, I have made this edit in R1.17:
> 
> s/Additionally, the direct mapping does not generate triples for NULL values; 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.
> /The direct mapping does not generate triples for NULL values/
> 

This is more than what I asked for. The only thing I was asking is to remove the very last sentence referring to the forthcoming working group note. Doing the edit you did goes against the WG resolution, that is for sure, and would lead to unnecessary discussions again. I think the sentence should be:

[[[
Additionally, the direct mapping does not generate triples for NULL values; note however that it is not known how to relate the behavior of the obtained RDF graph with the standard SQL semantics of the NULL values of the source RDB.
]]]

(note that, in the original text, it was behaviour instead of behavior. Some British spy came in and spoiled the pure American document!:-)

Ivan


> 
>> Is that ok Michael. 
>>> 
>>> [snip]
>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> - 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'm not sure I follow. Does it look like the attached 2.5.png?
>>>> 
>>> 
>>> You have not attached a file to the mail, but I do now... This is on Safari on Mac, the same happens on Firefox on Mac.
> 
> Sigh, trying again...
> 
> 
>>> [snip]
>>> 
>>> 
>>>> 
>>>>>>>  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
>>>>> 
>>>>> The point is exactly to show what happens when you have multi-column
>>>>> overlapping keys. Perhaps some text like "this is a complicated
>>>>> example intended to show the behavior with respect to multi-column
>>>>> overlapping keys" will properly calibrate the reader.
>>> 
>>> Ok. Maybe so. If we were not at CR I would propose to cut the example into two, a simpler and a more complex ones, but I recognize that this would lead to additional editorial jobs elsewhere (eg, to Juan in Appendix 3), so I let it go...
>>> 
>>> [snip]
>>> 
>>> Thanks guys!
>>> 
>>> Ivan
>>> 
>>> ----
>>> 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
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> <Screen Shot 2012-01-26 at 14.36.02 .png>
> 
> -- 
> -ericP
> <2.5.png>


----
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