- From: ashok malhotra <ashok.malhotra@oracle.com>
- Date: Wed, 05 Nov 2008 13:31:20 -0800
- To: Axel Polleres <axel.polleres@deri.org>
- CC: public-xg-rdb2rdf <public-xg-rdb2rdf@w3.org>
Let's discuss on Friday's call. All the best, Ashok Axel Polleres wrote: > > I mentioned the progress of RDB2RDB in yesterdays RIF teleconf. > Sandro brouht up a good argument: > > After my elaboration that in principle relation to RDF mappings could > in most cases be achieved by combining/extending SQL+SPARQL to a > common language for views, we see no obstable that RIF could serve as > a basis here. > > RIF BLD [1] as a rules language can both express relations (n-ary > predicates, optionally with named parameters common to DB relations), > as well as RDF by frames [2]. In that sense RIF itself could serve as > a basis for an RDB2RDF mapping language and should be mentioned in the > liaisons. > > I can give some overview over RIF in one of the next telecons. > > best, > Axel > > 1. http://www.w3.org/TR/rif-rdf-owl/ > (latest wiki snapshot: http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wiki/SWC) > 2.http://www.w3.org/TR/rif-bld/ > (latest wiki snapshot: http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wiki/BLD) > > ashok malhotra wrote: >> I formatted the document we created at the f2f in W3C style. Attached. >> Let's discuss this on Wednesday. >> >> ------------------------------------------------------------------------ >> >> W3C <http://www.w3.org/> >> >> >> Recommendation from the RDB2RDF XG >> >> >> 01 November 2008 >> >> This version: >> http://www.w3.org/XG_Recommendation/2008/RDB2RDF_XG-20081101 >> Latest version: >> http://www.w3.org/XG_Recommendation/RDB2RDF_XG Authors: >> Ashok Malhotra (editor), Oracle >> Members of the RDB2RDF XG, Various affiliations >> >> Copyright © 2008 W3C <http://www.w3c.org>. All rights reserved. This >> document is available under the W3C Document License >> <http://www.w3.org/Consortium/Legal/2002/copyright-documents-20021231>. >> See the W3C Intellectual Rights Notice and Legal Disclaimers >> <http://www.w3.org/Consortium/Legal/2002/ipr-notice-20021231#Copyright> >> for additional information. >> ------------------------------------------------------------------------ >> >> >> Abstract >> >> This is the final recommendation from the RDB2RDF XG. The XG >> recommends that the W3C initiate a WG to standardize a language for >> mapping Relational Database schemas into RDF and OWL. >> >> >> Status of this Document >> >> /This section describes the status of this document at the time of >> its publication. Other documents may supersede this document. A list >> of current W3C publications can be found in the W3C technical reports >> index <http://www.w3.org/TR/> at http://www.w3.org/TR/./ >> >> This is the final recommendation from the RDB2RDF XG. >> >> >> Table of Contents >> >> 1 Recommendation <#recommendation> >> 1.1 Liaisons <#IDABRIP> >> 1.2 Starting Points <#IDAHRIP> >> 2 References <#References> >> >> ------------------------------------------------------------------------ >> >> >> 1 Recommendation >> >> The RDB2RDF XG recommends that the W3C initiate a WG to standardize a >> language for mapping Relational Database schemas into RDF and OWL. >> Such a standard will enable the vast amounts of data stored in >> Relational databases to be published easily and conveniently on the >> Web. It will also facilitate integrating data from separate >> Relational databases and adding semantics to Relational data. >> >> The mapping language should be complete regarding when compared to to >> the relational algebra. It should have a human-readable syntax as >> well as XML and RDF representations of the syntax for purposes of >> discovery and machine generation. The output of the mapping will be >> defined in terms of an RDFS/OWL schema. >> >> It should be possible to subset the language for simple applications >> such as Web 2.0. This feature of the language will be validated by >> creating a library of mappings for widely used apps such as Drupal, >> Wordpress, phpBB. >> >> [Michael Haussenblas will help with creating test cases]. >> >> The mapping language will allow customization with regard to names >> and data transformation. In addition, the language must be able to >> expose vendor specific SQL features such as full-text and spatial >> support and vendor-defined datatypes. >> >> The final language specification should include guidance with regard >> to mapping Relational data to a subset of OWL such as OQL/QL or OWL/RL. >> >> The language must allow for a mechanism to create identifiers for >> database entities. The generation of identifiers should be designed >> to support the implementation of the linked data principlees >> http://www.w3.org/DesignIssues/LinkedData.html'. Where possible, the >> language will encourage the reuse of public identifiers for >> long-lived entities such as persons and corporations. >> >> >> 1.1 Liaisons >> >> The WG must track the evolution of SPARQL and liaise with the DAWG WG >> as well as the OWL WG. The WG will also keep in mind the OKKAM work >> on identifiers. >> >> >> 1.2 Starting Points >> >> The WG will take as its starting point the mapping languages >> developed by the D2RQ and Virtuoso efforts. >> >> >> 2 References >> >> IETF RFC 3986 >> Uniform Resource Identifiers (URI): Generic Syntax >> <http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc3986.txt>, T. Berners-Lee, R. Fielding, >> L. Masinter. Network Working Group, January 2005. (See >> http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc3986.txt.) >> IETF RFC 2119 >> Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate Requirement Levels >> <http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc2119.txt>, S. Bradner, Author. Internet >> Engineering Task Force, June 1999. (See >> http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc2119.txt.) > >
Received on Wednesday, 5 November 2008 21:32:02 UTC