See also: IRC log
<trackbot> Date: 04 May 2010
<mhausenblas> PROPOSAL: accept minutes from last telecon http://www.w3.org/2010/04/27-rdb2rdf-minutes.html
<soeren> +1
<juansequeda> +1
<mhausenblas> RESOLUTION: WG accepted minutes from last telecon http://www.w3.org/2010/04/27-rdb2rdf-minutes.html
<mhausenblas> scribenick: nunolopes
<cygri> for next time
<juansequeda> http://is.gd/bTNFm
<mhausenblas> http://docs.google.com/drawings/pub?id=1de31u5wBUheygJTXbxXE7e7H7QI_is9hEXi5dOO5knE&w=960&h=720
mhausenblas: new picture from juansequeda
juansequeda: the picture describes our two options
… option 1 uses the putative ontology
… option 2 uses the domain ontology
… and the result will be subset (non-isomorphic)
… with the relational database schema
… hopefully this image will give us a clear picture of where we are
Ahmed: we have been talking about the second option since before MacTed joined
Orri: I agree with Ahmed that we should support more "expressive"? translations
hhalpin: is there a vocabulary problem with the group?
MacTed: I am not saying that option 2 should dissapear
… option 2 actually is included in option 1
<juansequeda> There were some typos. I just corrected the image: http://docs.google.com/drawings/edit?id=1de31u5wBUheygJTXbxXE7e7H7QI_is9hEXi5dOO5knE
… where this step is visible from the tool or not it is still required
<Ahmed> q
<juansequeda> Apologies, the link is http://docs.google.com/drawings/pub?id=1de31u5wBUheygJTXbxXE7e7H7QI_is9hEXi5dOO5knE&w=960&h=720
… iterating/separating the steps all is satisfied
… the local ontology mapping should not be disregarded
<LeeF> +1 to Ashok's observation
<mhausenblas> +1
Ashok: Anyone disagrees that what we are to standardize is option 2, with option 1 being a subset of option 2?
<soeren> +1
<cygri> +1 to ashok
Ahmed: I agree with ashok.
<harry2halpin> but basically, I think we should do option 2.
… nobody said that specifing the domiain ontology is static
<harry2halpin> it's just that the vocabulary in the use-case document needs to be neutral about *how* to do it, i.e. neutral between ericP's sparql construct approach or a SQL view approach
<mhausenblas> s/...?/agree
<Zakim> LeeF, you wanted to ask what explciit inclusion of the local ontology stuff adds to the specification
LeeF: I agree with Ashok
MacTed do you say that there is some value in explicitly doing the transformation from the local ontology to the domain ontology
… what is that value?
<harry2halpin> no-one is saying that a central isomorphic transformation will not be part of the spec
MacTed: the simple transformation is a vital part of the mapping
LeeF: if the final specification requires a more complex transformation such that the direct mapping is a specific case of it why is it still needed to call it directly
harry2halpin: I would like that the direct mapping should be part of the use case document
… but not necessary
MacTed: yes, tools may hide this direct mapping
<harry2halpin> but that R2ML should allow this direct mapping.
Ahmed: we should select option 2
… are you saying that we should do option 2?
MacTed: I belive option 2 contains option 1
<LeeF> Sounds like everyone is in agreement thta Option 2 contains Option 1
… and that option 1 should not be made invisible
<mhausenblas> yes, indeed, we seem to agree
<harry2halpin> We agree with that MacTed, R2ML should be able to do a local ontology mapping.
<mhausenblas> I'd propose to move to the UCR document now
<LeeF> I think what MacTed is asking for is that the specification explicitly calls out 1 particular transformation: the direct mapping transform
Ahmed: we should have a mechanism that allows the user not only to use the local ontology but also the domain ontology mapping
<mhausenblas> PROPOSAL send out http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/rdb2rdf/use-cases/ as FPWD
mhausenblas: In the current stage, do you have any objections (specifically for MacTed)
MacTed: yes, there are some changes
… I would like to express the following cases
<harry2halpin> Note that Juan has added texts to make it more use-case like MacTed.
… it still feels more like case studies than a use cases document
mhausenblas: can you write a mail with some concrete changes?
MacTed: I can do that
<MacTed> tthibodeau
<mhausenblas> ACTION: tthibodeau to write up changes for UCR document and send to the list [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2010/05/04-rdb2rdf-minutes.html#action01]
<trackbot> Sorry, couldn't find user - tthibodeau
<harry2halpin> Note that this is a problem with your AC Rep.
<harry2halpin> So MacTed, please have your AC rep approve of your membership in the group!
<soeren> +q
<harry2halpin> There is nothing W3C staff can do until your AC Rep approves.
Ashok: publishing the document does not mean we cannot change it
… it's a first public draft
<mhausenblas> ACTION: mhausenb to take MacTed's changes into account before issuing FPWD [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2010/05/04-rdb2rdf-minutes.html#action02]
<trackbot> Created ACTION-52 - Take MacTed's changes into account before issuing FPWD [on Michael Hausenblas - due 2010-05-11].
… we can further work on it
mhausenblas: yes, we just waited for a few changes
soeren: I feel that uc5 and uc6 are not use-cases but requirements
… the labeling 'functional' and non-functional is also a problem
<mhausenblas> PROPOSAL" move UC5 and UC6 to reqs
<LeeF> Note that UC5 and UC6 are my use cases - I mainly care that they be included as requirements
LeeF: in the end I care that they are accepted as requirements
… but it doesn't make sense to have requirements that don't derive from use-cases
<soeren> +q
harry2halpin: the functional and non functional seem ok
<LeeF> I've always used (for better or for worse) http://www.w3.org/TR/rdf-dawg-uc/#uc as my guide for UC&R gathering
soeren: reg uc5 and 6 are more requirements since all the other use cases are regarding a specific domain
… these are more domain independent
Ahmed: the uc6 is not clear to me what is the use case
LeeF: I can clarify but need to go
mhausenblas: let's sort it out via mail
MacTed: the closest thing to a use case is 5 and 6 together
Ahmed: when I read n6 I don't see that
<LeeF> (FWIW, whoever it was who expressed UC6 as dealing with conflations of shema data and instance data had it exactly right - the idea is that we see many DB tables where some sort of indicator value in the row denotes the specific type of instance that the row represents - we need to be able to map that to an appropriate rdf:type when mapping from the RDB data to the RDF data)
… this should be sent for formal feedback soon
… after that the editors can just do some changes
<harry2halpin> +1 to be made public
MacTed: if this is only a public draft I'm ok with it
Ahmed: it should be more than that
<harry2halpin> Releasing a document for the sake of releasing a document is W3C process.
… we spent a lot of time to release it
MacTed: we should have the document released but with what we agree on
Ahmed: the document is a milestone, we should finalise and send it for review, 1 week feedback
harry2halpin: it's normal W3C process to release working drafts
… we should release it asap
… a brief discussion on some notations should be in order
<soeren> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-functional_requirement
mhausenblas: regarding renaming of function requirements to core requirements and non functional to auxiliary
<mhausenblas> PROPOSAL: change func req to core and non-functional to auxiliary
Ahmed: let's see what other people say but I disagree with the change
… let's send the document and wait for comments
mhausenblas: in that case the version 1.24 will be for one week under working group review?
… what will be the process?
Ahmed: let's set some time to reconcile the emails as a group
<mhausenblas> PROPOSAL: send out current version 1.24 for WG internal review, 1 week, feedback via mailing list
<ericP> second
juansequeda: only for internal review
mhausenblas: yes
<juansequeda> +1
<harry2halpin> +1, but then we really have to get consensus on it next week to publish.
mhausenblas: please make sure that you do send a mail to the list so we have a record to work on next week
<mhausenblas> yes, harry2halpin
<harry2halpin> +1 ericP, let's discuss this now.
ericP: juansequeda was making a case for direct mapping with no remaning would be the putative ontology?
juansequeda: 3.1.1 direct
ACCEPTED: send out current version 1.24 for WG internal review, 1 week, feedback via mailing list
juansequeda: does everyone understand 3.1.1 and 3.1.2?
<harry2halpin> it was simple enough for me to understand, but I'm more comfortable with using graph/isomorphism terminology than domain/putative ontology talk.
RESOLUTION: the current version of the UCR at http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/rdb2rdf/use-cases/ (v1.24) is under review for 1 week, WG internally. All members should review and send in comments via the RDB2RDF mailing list.
MacTed: there seems to be a slight inconsistency in the headings
… 3.1.1 isomorphic
… 3.1.2 non isomorphic
<mhausenblas> MacTed: please note that our resolution somehow has superseded our actions - will remove them again
… 3.1.2 a is currrently 3.1.3 (SQLTran)
juansequeda: so 3.1.4 would be part of the direct
MacTed: yes, think so
… I think label generation comes from the schema and is part of the direct translation
… label transformation doesn't seem to be described
harry2halpin: a direct transformation from the relational schema to a graph
… which terminology should we use?
<harry2halpin> domain/putative ontology?
… domain/putative?
Ahmed: local and domain ontology are well understood outside the RDF comunity
<harry2halpin> so we need to make an edit to the spec to use domain/putative ontology rather than purely direct/non-direct transform.
… I suggest we use those
<Zakim> ericP, you wanted to clarify SQLGEN
ericP: this literature comes from 1992
… not necessarially reg RDF
<MacTed> the beauty of this is we can define the term in the document.
<harry2halpin> we can then specify what precisely we mean in terms of RDF.
mhausenblas: I also suggest local and domain ontology
ericP: where dumping the data into a graph that can be described by an ontology
harry2halpin: we should use a vocabulary widely used like from the database comunity
… but we can use the terms if we define them properly
juansequeda: we translate the data which is an instance of the ontology
… option 1 uses a putative/local ontology
… option 2 uses a domain ontology
<mhausenblas> PROPOSAL: use local and domain ontology throughout the document and make clear that the data is an instance
ericP: we should be able to run the transform in both ways.
… take a sparql query and turn it into a SQL query
MacTed: the transformation should be reversible?
ericP: yes
<harry2halpin> +1
<juansequeda> +1
RESOLUTION: use local and domain ontology throughout the document and make clear that the data is an instance
<harry2halpin> "Coercing the relational graph into this pattern requires graph transformation."
<harry2halpin> dump to RDF->then use SPARQL constructs that direct RDF graph.
<harry2halpin> coercing the relational data into this pattern requires non-isomorphic graph transformations, i.e. transformation into a domain ontology
<harry2halpin> "coercing the relational data into this pattern requires non-isomorphic graph transformations, i.e. transformation into a domain ontology"
<mhausenblas> [adjourned]
<ericP> ACTION: ericP to send a READ ME request [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2010/05/04-rdb2rdf-minutes.html#action03]
<trackbot> Sorry, couldn't find user - ericP
<ericP> ACTION: eric to send a READ ME request [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2010/05/04-rdb2rdf-minutes.html#action04]
<trackbot> Created ACTION-53 - Send a READ ME request [on Eric Prud'hommeaux - due 2010-05-11].
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) FAILED: s/...?/agree/ Succeeded: s/…?./agree/ Succeeded: s/… MacTed/MacTed/ Succeeded: s/??/LeeF/ Succeeded: s/MacTed/mhausenblas/ Succeeded: s/harry2halpin/MacTed/ Succeeded: s/ausiliary/auxiliary/ Succeeded: s/?/harry2halpin/ Found ScribeNick: nunolopes Inferring Scribes: nunolopes Default Present: whalb, juansequeda, MacTed, mhausenblas, cygri_, +39.046.128.aaaa, nunolopes, cygri, soeren, Ashok_Malhotra, hhalpin, Lee_Feigenbaum, harry2halpin, EricP Present: whalb juansequeda MacTed mhausenblas cygri_ +39.046.128.aaaa nunolopes cygri soeren Ashok_Malhotra hhalpin Lee_Feigenbaum harry2halpin EricP Regrets: Marcelo Seema Souri Dan Agenda: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdb2rdf-wg/2010May/0002.html Found Date: 04 May 2010 Guessing minutes URL: http://www.w3.org/2010/05/04-rdb2rdf-minutes.html People with action items: eric ericp mhausenb tthibodeau WARNING: Input appears to use implicit continuation lines. You may need the "-implicitContinuations" option.[End of scribe.perl diagnostic output]