W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-rdf-dawg@w3.org > January to March 2004

Re: mapping a relational database as RDF

From: Patrick Stickler <patrick.stickler@nokia.com>
Date: Mon, 29 Mar 2004 15:19:33 +0300
Message-Id: <566CC68C-817B-11D8-BC88-000A95EAFCEA@nokia.com>
Cc: <public-rdf-dawg@w3.org>, "Chris Bizer" <chris@bizer.de>
To: "ext Rob Shearer" <Rob.Shearer@networkinference.com>

On Mar 26, 2004, at 21:42, ext Rob Shearer wrote:

> I think we're getting a little distracted by the actual RDBMS-to-RDF
> mapping implementation, which seems pretty obviously beyond our scope.

I'm glad someone else said it.

Is it possible that we agree as a WG that the primary focus of
our use cases are RDF graphs, and that how those RDF graphs are
realized/published is important, but out of scope?

I personally think it's great that there are so many tools emerging
for working with relational data from an RDF perspective, but I
agree with Rob that we seem to be getting distracted from our
primary focus.

I think it would be good if our use cases simply speak in terms
of RDF graphs or knowledge sources or databases, etc. and not
about non-RDF technology which would be below the opacity threshhold
of a given DAWG implementation.

The ultimate goal for these use cases is to derive requirements.

If folks say RDBMS, I expect that there is some requirement lurking
in there that will specifically relate to relational databases.
Since that is unlikely to be the case, the "extra" information
just gets in the way of understanding what the essential, core
characteristics of the use case are.

Yes, at some state we will need to create more fleshed-out
"stories" that journalists can recognize as relating to the
real world -- but I think that trying to craft use cases and
press release content at the same time is not working...



Patrick Stickler
Nokia, Finland
Received on Monday, 29 March 2004 07:54:30 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 17:00:24 UTC