<trackbot> Date: 23 August 2011

<cygri> ACTION: Boris to draw diagram for Section 9 (rr:translationScheme etc) [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2011/08/23-rdb2rdf-minutes.html#action01]

<trackbot> Created ACTION-154 - Draw diagram for Section 9 (rr:translationScheme etc) [on Boris Villazón-Terrazas - due 2011-08-30].

<cygri> thank you trackbot

trackbot, start telecon

<trackbot> Meeting: RDB2RDF Working Group Teleconference

<trackbot> Date: 23 August 2011

<scribe> scribenick: mhausenblas

<ivan> ???

Admin

PROPOSAL: Accept the minutes of last meeting http://www.w3.org/2011/08/16-rdb2rdf-minutes.html

<juansequeda> +1

RESOLUTION: Accept the minutes of last meeting http://www.w3.org/2011/08/16-rdb2rdf-minutes.html

Current actions and issue review

ACTION-140?

<trackbot> ACTION-140 -- Boris Villazón-Terrazas to produce an RDF Schema representation of the R2RML vocabulary terms. -- due 2011-08-16 -- OPEN

<trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/rdb2rdf/track/actions/140

<boris> http://www.w3.org/ns/r2rml

Ivan: give me the content and I'll take care of putting it there

ACTION-147?

<trackbot> ACTION-147 -- Richard Cyganiak to implement ISSUE-29 resolution by stating that conversion to string is done implicitly in any context where a string value is required, and is done according to the rules for SQL's CAST expression. Columns whose type cannot be CAST to string MUST NOT be used in a context that requires a string; and mark the issue as pending review -- due 2011-08-16 -- OPEN

<trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/rdb2rdf/track/actions/147

ACTION-150?

<trackbot> ACTION-150 -- Richard Cyganiak to come up with a proposal for ISSUE-61 (entity ID look-up table) -- due 2011-08-09 -- PENDINGREVIEW

<trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/rdb2rdf/track/actions/150

<cygri> http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/rdb2rdf/r2rml/#translation-schemes

Richard: see http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdb2rdf-wg/2011Aug/0130.html

PROPOSAL: Close ISSUE-61 as it is addressed by rr:translationScheme

NOP

<dmcneil> +q

David: does this mean the proposal is on the table or into the spec

Richard: I only got one comment, general +1 so now it is in the spec text

<MacTed> Zakimz, unmute me

<MacTed> +1 Souri

Souri: Agree with David, we seem to rush things

<MacTed> +1 Souri"12:15:43 * Souri frankly, I think we are rushing a bit with significant lat minute changes

<MacTed> "

<Souri> Why is Sep 1 so sacrosanct? We had only decided to make an attempt to meet it!

Ivan: Looking at the history - Wiki page is live since 9 Aug
... to be fair, the proposal has been around for a while

<dmcneil> +q

<dmcneil> -q

close ACTION-150

<trackbot> ACTION-150 Come up with a proposal for ISSUE-61 (entity ID look-up table) closed

<ivan> PROPOSED: The working group postpones the last call publication to the 15th of September

Michael: sounds good to me

<Souri> PROPOSAL: Postpone the LC publishing deadline by at least a month, preferably until 15-Oct-2011. (Justification: We need a thorough reading by majority of the group, besides resolving the issues.)

Souri: We really need to be able to review the entire thing
... A 95% ready product isn't going to help anyone
... Drawing on my experience from SPARQL WG

Michael: Did you check back with Ashok?

Souri: No

akc ivan

Ivan: I would not take the SPARQL experience as normal - it was much more fundamental (re semantics)

<ericP> ,e

Ivan: The question I have is more towards the Editors (R2RML and DM)
... 3 weeks seems enough for me re review

Richard: I have a personal problem because I'm not available for most of Sep

Michael: Sep is also bad for me (EC project reviews)

Richard: I intend to deal with the open issues till end of Aug anyways

<Souri> schools are starting here plus labor day weekend ... we are in a vacation and then busy with children mode ... so I cannot put in that much time until late September

<seema> I am in extreme deadline mode at work...deadline of Sep 15th as of now

Michael: others? what do you think about pushing back the deadline for one month?

Seema: +1 for Oct

David: I agree with the thought to have a sound review but I have also no problem

<ericP> i have no opinion

Juan: same as David

Richard: So, deadlines help getting things done
... unsure about Ashok's reaction

<Souri> +1 to Michael

Michael: happy to take an action to ask the WG what deadline the majority prefers (esp, re Ashok's opinion)

Ivan: can be a problem regarding the extension of the WG

Juan: what does this mean?

Ivan: We will have a hard time explaining it
... in an extreme case, the WG can be shut down

Michael: If quality increases then we should argue for extension

Ivan: let's try to make it anyways

<scribe> ACTION: Hausenblas to write a clarification mail to the WG list and ask for Ashok's opinion re extension [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2011/08/23-rdb2rdf-minutes.html#action02]

<trackbot> Created ACTION-155 - Write a clarification mail to the WG list and ask for Ashok's opinion re extension [on Michael Hausenblas - due 2011-08-30].

Richard: if LC deadline slips then we should really put out another round of WD

Michael: yes

ISSUE-48

ISSUE-48?

<trackbot> ISSUE-48 -- Mapping SQL datatypes to RDF -- open

<trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/rdb2rdf/track/issues/48

Richard: ongoing

DM

ISSUE-65?

<trackbot> ISSUE-65 -- For uniformity and performance, "literal" triples must be always generated for each child table column in a foreign key -- open

<trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/rdb2rdf/track/issues/65

ISSUE-64?

<trackbot> ISSUE-64 -- Predicate IRI design for foreign key does not handle common cases where same column sequence may be used for multiple foreign key constraints -- open

<trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/rdb2rdf/track/issues/64

Juan: I sent out proposals

<juansequeda> [[

<juansequeda> PROPOSAL: The DM will not address ISSUE-64 because it is a corner case.

<juansequeda> ]]

Michael: as per http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdb2rdf-wg/2011Aug/0131.html

<Souri> But that was the issue!

Souri: We can say that we do not address it because it is a corner cases, yes

<ericP> PROPOSAL: The DM already address's ISSUE-64 but it models multiple foreign keys on the same columns as repeates properties

<ericP> PROPOSAL: The DM already address's ISSUE-64 but it models multiple foreign keys on the same columns as repeated properties

<cygri> PROPOSAL: address ISSUE-64 by adding a note to the DM spec: "in the case of multiple FKs over the same sequence of columns, the DM generates the same property IRI"

Souri: fine with me (re Eric)

PROPOSAL: address ISSUE-64 by adding a note to the DM spec: "in the case of multiple FKs over the same sequence of columns, the DM generates the same property IRI"
... Address ISSUE-64 by adding a note to the DM spec: "in the case of multiple FKs over the same sequence of columns, the DM generates the same property IRI" and close the issue

<ivan> +1

<seema> +1

<cygri> +1

<boris> +1

<juansequeda> +1

<MacTed> +1

<privera> +1

RESOLUTION: Address ISSUE-64 by adding a note to the DM spec: "in the case of multiple FKs over the same sequence of columns, the DM generates the same property IRI" and close the issue

<juansequeda> PROPOSAL: Leave the DM document as-is because it already addresses ISSUE-65

<ivan> ISSUE-65?

<trackbot> ISSUE-65 -- For uniformity and performance, "literal" triples must be always generated for each child table column in a foreign key -- open

<trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/rdb2rdf/track/issues/65

<juansequeda> PROPOSAL: Create IRIs of the form <xxx/Table#column> for columns that are foreign keys. "xxx" will be some string that identifies that it is a foreign ken (i.e ref) and also create literal triples for the foreign key columns. This would address ISSUE-65 because we would have different IRIs for foreign key properties and literal properties.

<ericP> "Note that multiple foreign keys on the same columns will produce reference triples with identical reference properties."

<Souri> +1 for differentiating foreign key related IRI from IRI for literal property

<Souri> -1 for leaving it as it is

<Souri> sorry, I have to leave

Juan: so we have to conflicting proposals

<cygri> PROPOSAL: don't generating any FK triples

Eric: We can compare the impact

<ericP> we can compare the documents:

<ericP> http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/rdb2rdf/directMapping/EGP#defn-row%20graph

Michael: Thanks Eric!

<ericP> has the "and where that column is NOT the sole column in any foreign key" exception

<ericP> vs. http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/rdb2rdf/directMapping/explicitFK#defn-literal%20property%20IRI

<ericP> and http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/rdb2rdf/directMapping/explicitFK#defn-reference%20property%20IRI

<Zakim> ericP, you wanted to say that i've drafted both

<ericP> which splits literal and reference properties

<cygri> <Table#____column>

<ericP> i'd like to see specific motivating use cases

<ericP> but yes, cygri's approach works as well

Ted: We have concluded that not having both breaks things

<ericP> (some distinction like ___column)

Richard: Thing is we have -1 from both Eric and Souri mutually
... and both have good points
... one way of combining this would have a different prop, putting it after the hash

Michael: Hope this helped to advance discussion

[meeting adjourned]

trackbot, end telecon

This is scribe.perl Revision: 1.136  of Date: 2011/05/12 12:01:43  
Check for newer version at http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2002/scribe/

Guessing input format: RRSAgent_Text_Format (score 1.00)

Succeeded: s/RESOLUTION: Close ISSUE-61 as it is addressed by rr:translationScheme/NOP/
Succeeded: s/ALTERNATE PROPOSAL/PROPOSAL/
Found ScribeNick: mhausenblas
Inferring Scribes: mhausenblas
Default Present: cygri, Ivan, privera, dmcneil, Seema, juansequeda, MacTed, Souri, EricP
Present: cygri Ivan privera dmcneil Seema juansequeda MacTed Souri EricP Richard Michael Percy David Boris Juan Ted Eric
Regrets: Marcelo Nuno
Agenda: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdb2rdf-wg/2011Aug/0124.html
Found Date: 23 Aug 2011
Guessing minutes URL: http://www.w3.org/2011/08/23-rdb2rdf-minutes.html
People with action items: boris hausenblas