Re: RSP next calls

I wasn't at the f2f, so I'm not sure what all of the discussions
surrounding these two interpretations were, but I can see (1) being a
specific case of (2), so tackling (1) first gives us some boundaries we can
work with that we can later loosen to give us (2).

I think that a set of tools that can handle (2) will easily be able to
handle (1) as long as they don't assume some a priori finite limit on the
length of the stream. This means that eventually moving to accommodate (2)
shouldn't negatively impact (1) except perhaps some slight processing
performance.

I also see (1) as the more abstract concept with which we can develop all
of the relationships that we need to handle RDF streams and their
processing. (2) is then a way to make these abstractions concrete by
discussing how the data is serialized as elements, buckets, triples,
JSON-LD, or whatever other mix of parts are needed to get data through a
pipeline. (1) gives us a framework with which to build (2).

So +1 on working with (1) first and then approaching (2).

-- Jim



On Tue, Nov 12, 2013 at 5:11 AM, Emanuele Della Valle <
emanuele.dellavalle@polimi.it> wrote:

>  Dear Jean-Paul and all,
>
>  I edited a bit the
> http://www.w3.org/community/rsp/wiki/Concepts_and_Definitions page. In
> particular I wrote the following statement:
>
>  In the f2f meeting in Sydney it emerged that the term 'data stream' is
> intended in different ways in this Community Group. The two main
> interpretations are:
> 1. data streams as infinite time-series
> 2. data streams as sequence of data element (typically ordered in the best
> way for a downstream processor)
>
>  In the f2f meeting consensus was that the Community Group focus the next
> months activities on '1'. Interpretation '2' can be discuss in the
> community group, but in a second stage.
>
>  So trying to scope the first stage of activity, *the community group
> between November 2013 and April 2014 focuses on continuous query answering
> on infinite time-series of RDF triples that arrive to the RDF processing
> engine over time*.
>
>  I put this forward because I believe we must decide to focus if we want
> to achieve something.
>
>  Comments are welcome.
>
>  Bests,
>
>  Emanuele
>
>  On Nov 12, 2013, at 3:05 AM, Jean-Paul <jp.calbimonte@upm.es>
>  wrote:
>
>    Hello,
>
>  Thanks for your input. 4th Telco will be on nov 22 15:00 CET.
>  We will be discussing about the Streams concepts and definitions that we
> have started drafting in the wiki.
>  Please feel free to provide your input there already:
>
> http://www.w3.org/community/rsp/wiki/Concepts_and_Definitions
>
>  ...specialy if there is a key concept missing that you consider we
> should include.
>
>  Cheers,
>  jp
>
>
>  PS
> Please, if Danh or Manfred can help us again with Webex, we will be very
> thankful.
>
>
>
>
>
>
> 2013/11/6 Jean-Paul <jp.calbimonte@upm.es>
>
>>   Yes, I see. That will make everyone's life easier.
>>  We'll dicuss it.
>>
>>  thanks
>>
>>  jp
>>
>>
>> 2013/11/6 Axel Polleres <axel@polleres.net>
>>
>>> Thanks, BTW, may I suggest that instead of a single doodle per Telco, to
>>> doodle for one fixed timeslot per week, e.g. "Tue 15:00" or alike, as usual
>>> in other WGs? I think this should make planning easier. Maybe we can
>>> discuss this in the Telco.
>>>
>>> thanks & best regards,
>>> Axel
>>>
>>> --
>>> Prof. Dr. Axel Polleres
>>> Institute for Information Business, WU Vienna
>>> url: http://www.polleres.net/  twitter: @AxelPolleres
>>>
>>> On Nov 2, 2013, at 11:40 PM, Jean-Paul <jp.calbimonte@upm.es> wrote:
>>>
>>> > Hello All,
>>> >
>>> > Thanks to all who could attend the meeting at ISWC, and specially to
>>> those who made it through WebEx (although couldn't interact too much,
>>> unfortunately)
>>> >
>>> > The meeting went quite well, and we received input from people of
>>> other sub-communities and with different background. Others showed
>>> interest, at least as 'observers' of what we are trying to do.
>>> >
>>> > One result of the meting is the intention of clarifying the scope of
>>> our work. A first step to do this is to have written some of the key
>>> concepts and definitions that we should agree on. Mikko has already
>>> provided a first version as he already commented, and the purpose of the
>>> next telecon will be to discuss them:
>>> >
>>> > http://www.w3.org/community/rsp/wiki/Concepts_and_Definitions
>>> >
>>> > Until then, I invite you all to contribute to that ( I see some have
>>> already started, great!) so that we can have material for discussion.
>>> >
>>> > Please, also indicate your preferences for the next calls:
>>> >
>>> > http://doodle.com/a8ggni2v4su7c88b
>>> >
>>> > http://doodle.com/6i97qvmaqiwnwvsa
>>> >
>>> > http://doodle.com/hixgfbv9drxbu4in
>>> >
>>> >
>>> > Thanks to all,
>>> >
>>> > jp
>>> >
>>> > --
>>> > Jean-Paul Calbimonte
>>> > Ontology Engineering Group
>>> > Universidad Politécnica de Madrid
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Jean-Paul Calbimonte
>> Ontology Engineering Group
>> Universidad Politécnica de Madrid
>>
>
>
>
> --
> Jean-Paul Calbimonte
> Ontology Engineering Group
> Universidad Politécnica de Madrid
>
>
>