See also: IRC log
<juansequeda> http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/rdb2rdf/wiki/All_Cases_for_Default_Mapping
<juansequeda> http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/rdb2rdf/directGraph/
@@: section 2
scribe: what happens with the
PrimaryKey?
... @enumerates 7 cases that have to be treated@
ericP: the FK points to a
CandidateKey in another table, but ti does not mean it's a
PK
... or even that there is a PK
@@: is that the only case you need both tables?
ericP: yes
@@: let's write down any single case in specific sections
ericP: the recipe should tell you
what it has to do
... the examples give you a sense of what it does
... if you don't want to have separate examples for each case,
you can just say: "this example covers these cases"
... because some cannot exist on their own
+1
ericP: let's be sure we agree on the examples
Marcelo: the use-cases are ok,
the examples too
... it's just difficult to read
... I propose myself to re-organize for next week
ericP: what about
terminology?
... tables VS relations
... SQL can give you multiple columns with the same name
... you cannot do it with SPARQL
... because @@
... so we have to decide what to do with headers and columns
with the same name
juansequeda: can we vote to use
SQL terminology instead of relational algebra
terminology?
... choices are: relations/attributes OR tables/columns OR
tables/attributes
<MacTed> tables/columns.
ericP: and we can speak about fnames instead of order
[ betehess: tables/columns ]
<MacTed> saying "relation = table" doesn't make sense to me. mixing tables/attributes makes even less.
<Marcelo> relations/attributes
@@: in relation algebra, people use "relation"
@@: in any of my classes, I apologize because the names are not fully defined
@@: I would suggest to use SQL terminology because of the audience
PatH: we at least need to define the terms very well
<MacTed> +1
<Marcelo> +1
Consensus around SQL terminology
ericP: +1
<juansequeda> +1 for using SQL terminology
<PatH> abstain. I go with the flow.
@@: SQL people use column, not attributes
@@: can we say: tables + columns + columns are unique within the table?
<MacTed> SQL identifiers == catalog.owner/schema.table.column
ericP: the schema has a unique mapping from to datatypes
<MacTed> column names are unique within table; table names are unique within owner/schema; owner/schema names are unique within catalog
ericP: tuple has unique mapping
from names to value (or NULL)
... Marcelo and I propose a clearer version of the
document
... expecting others will understand how genius we are :-)
<Marcelo> http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/rdb2rdf/directGraph/
ericP proposed a strategy for editing the documents
betehess: what is semantics?
ericP: you take an RDB and then
you have an RDF graph
... it's all about the formalism of the formal mapping
[[
given a SPARQL-to-SQL mapping to access SQL database, prove that the semantics of the translated SPARQL query executed against a particular RDB dataset is equivalent to the same SPARQL query executed against the same RDB dataset seen through the RDB2RDF mapping.
]]
<PatH> +1 to whoever just spoke.
<PatH> Yes, we should do this. BUt this is about the semantics of the inputs and outputs of the mapping, not of the mapping language itself.
PatH, yes :-)
<Marcelo> +1 PatH
1. in the case of the Default Mapping, you have a function "mapping : RDB → RDF".
2. in the case of R2ML, you have a function "mapping : (RDB×R2ML) → RDF". The Default Mapping is just a particular case where you use the empty value as an inhabitant for R2ML.
<PatH> We could (not on IRC) draw this as a 'square' of functors which we want to commute.
<MacTed> +10000000 :-)
<PatH> BTW, I think this might be quite tricky to establish, I think. It *ought* to be easy, but details, details...
<PatH> Seems to me that there will be a big semantic mismatch arising from the 'open world' assumption (semantic: classical model thoery) of RDF. Have you guys discussed this?
<juansequeda> PatH, we haven't
<PatH> Oh.
<MacTed> PatH - not sure what issue you're seeing....
<MacTed> RDB ("schema first") is generally considered a 'closed world' model.
<MacTed> RDF ("schema last") is generally considered an 'open world' model.
<MacTed> 'closed world' fits fine within 'open world', which is what we're doing. RDB exposed as *part of* the RDF GGG.
<PatH> Yes, but if we try to establish semantic relationship using the semantics, we will find that RDF cannot express things that are implicit in the RDB semantic model.
<MacTed> example, please?
<PatH> Implied negatives for missing data, for example, which can be detected by SPARQL.
<PatH> Semantically, closed world is much stronger than open.
<PatH> stronger = fewer models, more implications.
<MacTed> can you state the problem you see more explicitly? I'm not seeing the issue you apparently are.
<PatH> Might take too long on IRC. Need a fully worked out example. Semantically, its that minimal models or algebraic semantics can express many things that cant be expressed in RDF wihtout negation.
<MacTed> so ... they can be expressed in RDF *with* negation, yes? or in RDF with "affirmative statement of negative"?
<PatH> Such things as: negative queries following from failure to find a match. And cardinality queries like 'how many'. None of this follows in the RDF semantics.
<PatH> But RDF doesnt have negation!
<MacTed> I think you're shifting from RDF to SPARQL, and from RDB to SQL
<MacTed> <a> hasNo <b> -- affirmative statement of negation :-)
<PatH> No, thats the problem. SPARQL can do things that arent supported by the RDF *semantics*.
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/field/column/ Found Scribe: betehess Inferring ScribeNick: betehess WARNING: No "Topic:" lines found. WARNING: No "Present: ... " found! Possibly Present: MacTed Marcelo OpenLink_Software PatH betehess ericP juansequeda trackbot You can indicate people for the Present list like this: <dbooth> Present: dbooth jonathan mary <dbooth> Present+ amy WARNING: No meeting title found! You should specify the meeting title like this: <dbooth> Meeting: Weekly Baking Club Meeting WARNING: No meeting chair found! You should specify the meeting chair like this: <dbooth> Chair: dbooth Got date from IRC log name: 21 Oct 2010 Guessing minutes URL: http://www.w3.org/2010/10/21-rdb2rdf-minutes.html People with action items: WARNING: No "Topic: ..." lines found! Resulting HTML may have an empty (invalid) <ol>...</ol>. Explanation: "Topic: ..." lines are used to indicate the start of new discussion topics or agenda items, such as: <dbooth> Topic: Review of Amy's report[End of scribe.perl diagnostic output]