<trackbot> Date: 20 April 2010

And I'm always complaining I never win anything :)

<mhausenblas> scribenick: nunolopes

<juansequeda> Unfortunately, Dan sends his regrets. He has to attend an urgent meeting

<mhausenblas> soeren, seems we've lost you on phone again

Admin

PROPOSAL: accept minutes of previous telecon http://www.w3.org/2010/04/13-rdb2rdf-minutes.html

<mhausenblas> +1

<hhalpin> +1

ACCEPTED

RESOLUTION: minutes of previous telecon http://www.w3.org/2010/04/13-rdb2rdf-minutes.html accepted

Use Cases

http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/rdb2rdf/use-cases/

mhausenblas: update on use-cases, creating use case document with ericP

… based on pages from the wiki

<ericP> UC&R publication draft

… overall structure of document: introduction, usecases, requirements

intro contains motivation and background

… and the setting for RDB2RDF

… any alternatives /suggestions to the overall structure?

juansequeda: I though angela, dan and I were going to work on this document

… wans't it supposed to show as well why we should do RDB2RDF

… this is something not present at the moment

… what we were working on includes a more overall structure, that is not included in this document

MacTed: discussion on the generic cases and providing specific examples, which is what we call the current usecases

<MacTed> http://www.w3.org/TR/xquery-use-cases/

<MacTed> http://www.w3.org/2008/WebVideo/Fragments/WD-media-fragments-reqs/#use-cases

… 3 generic cases

… we have several examples of rdb2rdb, 1 rdb2rdf, no examples of rdb for web

… the document should go from simple cases to the more complex

… if the complex cases are not needed should be droped

… going from generic usecases to more specific

… this is very much focused on implementation details

mhausenblas: agreed, and the target audience of the docment should be on the document

… to juan, most of your suggesttions are in section 1.1

<juansequeda> http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/rdb2rdf/use-cases/#uc

juansequeda: my concern is about section 2

mhausenblas: do we talk about the overall structure or go to the specific sections

<Zakim> ericP, you wanted to describe the XQuery Use Cases and Requirements document

ericP: the most succssfull use cases was the xquery usecase document

<ericP>

… served as a guide not only to the users but also for the WG

… to determine what is already done/missing

mhausenblas: we also though about merging the two approaches, having a generic overview and a more detailed description
... going through the document

Ahmed: the motivations section is missing

mhausenblas: I created 2 subsections in sec 1

… 1.1 is why to map

… 1.2 is the more concrete usecases

<mhausenblas> http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/rdb2rdf/use-cases/

… here should be revision 1.12

mhausenblas: at the end of 1.1 has an extention about the overview of RDB2RDF and some more definitions

juansequeda: i'm ok with Section 1

mhausenblas: 1.2 is why a standard RDB2RDF method

<hhalpin> well there has been argument against a standard from at least one person :)

… a bit unusual for W3C but I think it's a good idea

Ashok: at the end of the section you have a quote, it should be a paragraph?

mhausenblas: only due to missuse of XML spec … need to work on this

… also pointing out we are only dealing with read-only access

<afogarol> +1

… any other comments on Section 1?

… No, moving to Section 2

…. we took the old wiki page here and we have a new structure in the old wiki location

MacTed: this doesn't reflect the primitives I mentioned before.

<MacTed> 11:00:35 <MacTed> 1. joining incompatible RDB schema (fully structured data)

<MacTed> 11:00:35 <MacTed> 2. joining RDB against RDF (semi-structured data)

<MacTed> 11:00:35 <MacTed> 3. joining RDB against the Web (unstructured data)

<mhausenblas> clarification re old and new UC

<mhausenblas> http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/rdb2rdf/wiki/Use_Cases_and_Requirements is the NEW

<mhausenblas> http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/rdb2rdf/wiki/Draft_of_Use_Cases is the OLD (content)

mhausenblas: you are proposing 3 generic uses , 1 incompativble RDB schema

… any better title for this use case?

Ahmed: Database integration

<juansequeda> http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/rdb2rdf/wiki/Use_Cases_and_Requirements#Use_Cases

… 2. joining RDB against RDF. Do we have a more specific use case on this?

juansequeda: we have 3 use cases in the document

… aligned with the 3 topics MacTed was talking about

soeren: 2.3 Integrating Enterprise Relational databases is not a use case for RDB2RDF

disagreed in general

MacTed: all the usecases have the generic topic of integrating data

<hhalpin> this is not contradictory

Ahmed: these integrations can all map to RDF, shouldn't be a problem

MacTed: integration with existing RDF

juansequeda: all the scenarios are different, although all refering to integration

<mhausenblas> agree, hhalpin - we should get on with it

MacTed: the mapping can be done in seperate stages..

… transforming RDB to RDF does not mean you can asnwer the question you want

… may be necessarey to have other steps like reasoning

<souri> +1 to MacTed, and question: what is in the scope of our charter?

mhausenblas: 2 issues: structured usecases

… flat model with all use cases

<juansequeda> +1 mhausenblas We need to choose one

angela: there is some work to be done after the mapping but these are not part of our work

<Zakim> ericP, you wanted to suggest we can make our lives easier if we document only our expressivity

Ahmed: agreed, mapping is not the same as data integration

<souri> we can include the extra steps in the UseCases, but also point out where RDB2RDF will stop and what is extra

hhalpin: write the doc to inform people why it's usefull, or we can just report on the expressivity

… proposing we don't try to agree on wording on how we talk about next steps

Ahmed: agreed,

<hhalpin> I'll just type it it:

<hhalpin> we need at this point to only accept exact text proposal

<hhalpin> not high-level discussions that do not have exact proposals

juansequeda: I agree with mhausenblas, we can come up with new use cases and not classify them

… we can think about the role of the ontology

mhausenblas: we go ahead with the flat format

… Section 3, Requirement

… 3.1 section expressivitty, 3 concrete requirenmnets

… did not include the language requirements from the charter

…. unless we come up with concrete requirements from those

soeren: we need to extend this section

… attaching metadata

<ericP> weak!

mhausenblas: any more suggestions?

juansequeda: the usecases stiill needs some work

ericP: we can revisit this after publication

mhausenblas: we could publish what we have as a first working draft

ericP: this is not unusual to have still missing parts in the working drafts

hhalpin: when suggesting changes we should be more specific: this exact text should be added at some specific point

mhausenblas: +1

<hhalpin> the editors can reserve the right to not do any changes if they are not provided any exact text

… it really helps if we don't have to keep asking clarifications

adjourned

s/adjouned/adjourned/

This is scribe.perl Revision: 1.135  of Date: 2009/03/02 03:52:20  
Check for newer version at http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2002/scribe/

Guessing input format: RRSAgent_Text_Format (score 1.00)

Succeeded: s/1.11/1.12/
Succeeded: s/ericP/hhalpin/
Succeeded: s/ adjouned/adjourned/
FAILED: s/adjouned/adjourned/
Found ScribeNick: nunolopes
Inferring Scribes: nunolopes
Default Present: +1.512.471.aaaa, +3539149aabb, juansequeda, mhausenblas, nunolopes, +1.781.273.aacc, MacTed, Ashok_Malhotra, +043316876aadd, whalb, +49.322.222.0.aaee, soeren, Souri, lima, +039046128aaff, Ahmed, EricP, afogarol, Orri, +1.603.897.aagg, [IPcaller], Seema, cygri, hhalpin
Present: +1.512.471.aaaa +3539149aabb juansequeda mhausenblas nunolopes +1.781.273.aacc MacTed Ashok_Malhotra +043316876aadd whalb +49.322.222.0.aaee soeren Souri lima +039046128aaff Ahmed EricP afogarol Orri +1.603.897.aagg [IPcaller] Seema cygri hhalpin
Agenda: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdb2rdf-wg/2010Apr/0037.html
Found Date: 20 Apr 2010
Guessing minutes URL: http://www.w3.org/2010/04/20-rdb2rdf-minutes.html
People with action items: 

WARNING: Input appears to use implicit continuation lines.
You may need the "-implicitContinuations" option.