See also: IRC log
<trackbot> Date: 01 March 2011
I can try to do my best
today
<mhausenblas> scribenick: boris
TOPIC ADMIN
PROPOSAL: Accept minutes
of last meeting
http://www.w3.org/2011/02/22-rdb2rdf-minutes.html
+1
RESOLUTION: Accepted minutes of last meeting
michael: Mid march new
publication
...: drafts
<mhausenblas> ACTION-98?
<trackbot> ACTION-98 -- Juan Sequeda to rename Issue 11 and fix it in the DM -- due 2011-02-08 -- CLOSED
<trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/rdb2rdf/track/actions/98
http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/rdb2rdf/directMapping/
<mhausenblas> ACTION-99?
<trackbot> ACTION-99 -- Juan Sequeda to change ISSUE-13 to postponed and add ref from ISSUE-11 to ISSUE-13 -- due 2011-02-08 -- OPEN
<trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/rdb2rdf/track/actions/99
<mhausenblas> close ACTION-99
<trackbot> ACTION-99 Change ISSUE-13 to postponed and add ref from ISSUE-11 to ISSUE-13 closed
<mhausenblas> ACTION-102?
<trackbot> ACTION-102 -- Ted Thibodeau to sum up the possibilities for generating reliable URIs for DM (to avoid bNodes) on the Wiki -- due 2011-02-15 -- OPEN
<trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/rdb2rdf/track/actions/102
juan: action 99 close
michael: any news regarding this?
MacTed: nothing new
<mhausenblas> ISSUE 14?
<mhausenblas> ISSUE-14?
michael: ISSUE 14 ... ?
ISSUE-14?
<trackbot> ISSUE-14 -- Many-to-Many tables -- open
<trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/rdb2rdf/track/issues/14
michael: anything related to this issue?
juan: let's hear richard opinion
about this? ... many to many on direct mapping
... richard, you pointed out that d2r users were waiting for
this
richard: what do we want to achieve with the DM? that the question
<ericP> this will be tricky
without resolve without ashok and richard on the same
call
...: useful thing of DM
... what people want to do with this default RDF
... sparql query for sure
... I would evaluate the DM by how easy is to do sparql query
against it
....: as M2M is hard to do a sparql query
...: also there will be some theoretical cases ...
... these corner cases are not convincing
... any given tool for just pushing button for generating RDF
triples
... not to generate an intermediate table
juan: how many people complain about this in d2r?
richard: no one has complaint about this
<ericP> Stonebraker's counter
example: CREATE TABLE Marriages (p1 INT, p2 INT, FOREIGN KEY
(p1 REFERENCES Person(ID), FOREIGN KEY (p2 REFERENCES
Person(ID)));
...: since the current approach (get rid of the intermediate
table) ... 5 years more or less
... no corner cases ... d2r has only one approach
... after we did the m2m, no more complains
noise
richard: cannot recall anything about the current approach
eric: it's nothing particular
about this
...: for instance nothing to get the directionally
... main issue is the complexity
juan: I dont see the corner
example
...: person and married
richard: order of the columns by
someone
...: even arbitrarily
... we can say it is incorrect
eric: ?? modelling is
feasible
...: there are cases when is optimal
MacTed: any change, change the
mapping
...: then the mapping is different even if is a "bit"
different
eric: if I made assertions to be
tracked ...
...: I don't need to visit my code
MacTEd: dependes in the code
richard: not true in SQL
eric: I meant other thing
MacTed: q: create two tables in
RDB
... join id equals identify columns
...: you have sth not resolvable?
is far from norm
eric: look at different table
juan: keep it simple
...: everyone is gona to complain
... then we have to go back
... the only way to "prove" this is richard experience
... we have to learn from this
michael: kind of lost
...: the group more or less agreed to do anything about
m2m?
... are we able to come with a proposal?
juan: don't think so
... yet
... richard, do you want to inlclude it in the DM?
richard: yes
juan: include a binary table as a
relationshiop
... we don't keep it simple, keep it real
<dmcneil> +q
michael: let's keep mid march
...
...: either put some work to resolve it or came to a
proposal
dmcneil: only binary table?
juan: two foering keys, compound columns ...binary relation
dmcneil: ok, thanks
juan: the proposal can be we need more feedback
<ericP> s/eric?:/dmcneil:/
juan?
thanks juan!
michael: would you please juan
type the proposal
...: we should try to get feedback on this ...
<juansequeda> PROPOSAL: Many-to-Many table in direct mapping is still an open issue. Publish the Direct Mapping WD with this open issue and get feedback
richard: ...extra work to write those queries ... proposes to do an extra work on the editors
eric: DM foundation, is not the
final product
...: what do we have to do in R2RML
... nice mapping from SPARQL to SQL queries, how hard we make
their lifes
michael: we have a concrete
proposal
...: we need more input
<MacTed> +1 Proposal as
written
...: as an open issue
<ericP> +1
...: any objections of the current proposal
richard: another option is to do both, put the table in the graph, and also the direct table in the graph
michael: good to include this in issue 14
eric: only subject?
michael: anywhere
<juansequeda> ISSUE-14?
<trackbot> ISSUE-14 -- Many-to-Many tables -- open
<trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/rdb2rdf/track/issues/14
<mhausenblas> Michael: if you mentioned ISSUE-14 in a mail tracker will pick it up
michael: no objections to this proposal
RESOLUTION: ROPOSAL: Many-to-Many table in direct mapping is still an open issue. Publish the Direct Mapping WD with this open issue and get feedback
sorry
SOLUTION: ROPOSAL accepted
... PROPOSAL accepted
RESOLUTION: Many-to-Many table in direct mapping is still an open issue. Publish the Direct Mapping WD with this open issue and get feedback
accepted
<mhausenblas> ISSUE-9?
<trackbot> ISSUE-9 -- Generate Blank Nodes for duplicate tuples -- open
<trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/rdb2rdf/track/issues/9
michael: issue 9, blank node...
status?
... is there an action about that, yes ...
... any progress?
... either we have sth there, or we can handle next week
... it depends if we deliver sth there
... please do not deliver an hour before the call
<mhausenblas> ISSUE-10?
<trackbot> ISSUE-10 -- Hash vs Slash -- open
<trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/rdb2rdf/track/issues/10
michael: issue 10
... status?
... juan?
eric: several emails about
it
... hash with no fragment identifier
... in html are identical
juan: no preferences about this
<ivan> +1 cygri
michael: something that a user wants to provide as a configuration
<ivan> #_
richard: on the DM the closest approximation by default
<juansequeda> base_uri/table = URI for a Table
<juansequeda> base_uri/table/attribute = URI for a column
richard: argument not having _
... because URIs looks nicer
... not everyone wants to resolve these urls
<juansequeda> base_uri/table/attribute=value#_ vs base_uri/table/attribute=value URI for a tuple
richard: this is just for resolve on the web
michael: there is an option to write R2RML to modify it
ivan: two separate issues, use #
or use #_
...: already pointed in the emails
... if we don't use the "#" put an extra load on the server
side
richard: assumes that the identities are non-information resources, ...
ivan: they identify in the
table
... they identify a row in the table
richard: this is information resource for me
ivan: you said that you can use
R2RML to modify it
... adding or removing
michael: LD deployment is important and we have to do it ...
<ericP> what's the md5sum of <People/ID=7#_> ?
michael: I don't see any strong reason for not doing that
<ericP> or the md5sum of <People/ID=7> ?
ivan: agree, if we use a #, this works in most cases ... people may not like the # because is ugly ....
richard: sorry Ivan, the row in a table is an information resource
eric: ..... trying to separate IR to real
richard: you are confusing
resource and representation
... eric=you
...: we have spent some much time on this
... no new things about this ..
... many cases it doesn't matter at all ... people only has to
spaqrl
ivan: way more specific that the
discussion about http 14
...: the URI that identify that row is this
... agree with Richard
eric: things to look at it
...
...: is sth in the DB that is an information resource
?
scribe: according to richard, yes
MacTed: it is always an
information resource
...: description is a document
<cygri> quoting AWWW: The
distinguishing characteristic of these resources is that all of
their essential characteristics can be conveyed in a message.
We identify this set as “information resources.”
...: information in the database is information resource
richard: definition of
information resource
... IR: The distinguishing characteristic of these resources is
that all of their essential characteristics can be conveyed in
a message. We identify this set as “information
resources.
...: what is the case in which we can have a problem?
... access via SPARQL, no problem
... access via deferenable URI
no problem
...: only if you are on these cases,
....: not SPARQL, no dump
...: not use R2RML
... only then you will have the case
eric: compatible with LD
principles
... whether or not use SPARQL, we make sure to make
resolvable
... again, db records are not information resources, 303, ...
there is a community that think this is an issue
richard: who?
eric: . ...
<cygri> Jonathan Reese (?)
eric: bunch of people from
standford
... Jonathan Rees
... for example
<MacTed> http://sharedname.org/
michael: we won't be able to come up with sth, how important is this?
<cygri> PROPOSAL: row identifiers should be base_uri/table/attribute=value without # or #_ at the end
<mhausenblas> http://www.w3.org/TR/2010/WD-rdb2rdf-ucr-20100608/#intro-whyrdb2rdf
michael: let's see the UC
document
... based on that, we need to explain in the DM ....
... I don't see why to emphasize one of them,
eric: do we have to eliminated ...
MacTed: we are talking about the
DM, not the optimal mapping
... it is basic, it is the simplest
... and it will work
eric: it works both ways
MacTed: it doesn't work in all cases
OPOSAL: row identifiers should be base_uri/table/attribute=value without # or #_ at the end
<ericP> -1
<MacTed> +1 proposal as written
PROPOSAL: row identifiers should be base_uri/table/attribute=value without # or #_ at the end
<cygri> +1
<mhausenblas> +1
+1
<dmcneil> +1
<juansequeda> +1
<juansequeda> +1 from marcelo too
<ivan> 0
eric: when people say these are
not information resources ....
...: if they are, there are requirements for LD ....
... hash space reduces the number of round trips
eric: there are people
michael: I don't see any strong reason
juan: we still on track of mid march deadline
michael: no very good
reason
...: if they are not happy ...
richard: regardless of the nature
of the resources, the suggestion to do without the hash
works
...: because you can use R2RML to modify it
... even with the argument of they are not information
resources
eric: three arguments, which one are you refering to?
richard: only one
... I hear only one
... even if they are not information resources, why to do this
in the DM
eric: if they are information
resources, I predict we will have much problem ... if we don't
treat them as information resources
...: if they aren't not information resources, we have some
impact on the server, 303
MacTed: but we have R2RML
richard: 303 are compatible with LD
MacTed: your objection is gone the
n
eric: nonIF DM produces a graph that are both compatible to LD and efficient to access
<cygri> +1 MacTed
MacTed: default is not always efficient
+1 MacTed
eric: ok
MacTed: so remove this objection?
eric: if we say that de direct graph consithers 303 ...
MacTed: you can include it in your payload
eric: I can live with it, if we can do the rewrite
<mhausenblas> PROPOSAL: row identifiers should be base_uri/table/attribute=value without # or #_ at the end
PROPOSAL: row identifiers should be base_uri/table/attribute=value without # or #_ at the end
<mhausenblas> Michael: any objections?
RESOLUTION: row identifiers should be base_uri/table/attribute=value without # or #_ at the end
michael: so, we can close the
issue right?
... DM editors pls make sure to implement this on DM and close
issue 10
... do you need an action for that?
... implemented the resolution
... to implement the resolution
juan: I'll check it and do some
clean as well
... hierarchical tables?
<mhausenblas> ACTION: Juan to implement decision re ISSUE-10 (remove hash) and close ISSUE-10 [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2011/03/01-rdb2rdf-minutes.html#action01]
<trackbot> Created ACTION-104 - Implement decision re ISSUE-10 (remove hash) and close ISSUE-10 [on Juan Sequeda - due 2011-03-08].
michael: DM issue: 10 (closed) 14
(postpone), 15 (open)
...:
michael: next time focus on
R2RML
... action 10 is closed
michael I don't remember how to clean the minutes?
<mhausenblas> trackbot, end telecon
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/eric?/dmcneil/ FAILED: s/eric?:/dmcneil:/ Succeeded: s/amrcelo/marcelo/ Succeeded: s/de/the/ Succeeded: s/10,/10 (closed)/ Found ScribeNick: boris Inferring Scribes: boris Default Present: cygri, juansequeda, boris, mhausenblas, Ivan, +1.636.544.aaaa, dmcneil, EricP, MacTed Present: cygri juansequeda boris mhausenblas Ivan +1.636.544.aaaa dmcneil EricP MacTed Regrets: Percy Alexandre Nuno Agenda: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdb2rdf-wg/2011Mar/0000.html Found Date: 01 Mar 2011 Guessing minutes URL: http://www.w3.org/2011/03/01-rdb2rdf-minutes.html People with action items: juan[End of scribe.perl diagnostic output]