RDB2RDF Working Group Teleconference

<trackbot> Date: 08 November 2011

<Ashok> zakim: This will be RDB2RDB

<Ashok> meeting: RDB2RDF

<Ashok> zakim: This will be RDB2RDF

<dmcneil> I am the 314 number

<scribe> scribenick: ivan

<scribe> scribe: Ivan

Ashok: minutes from last meeting

<Ashok> PROPOSAL: Accept the minutes of F2F meeting http://www.w3.org/2011/11/03-RDB2RDF-minutes.html

Ashok: any objections?
... carry 1
... carry 2
... carried!

Souri: I was also present after 12
... it does not show my name at the top
...: -(

Ashok: I was not very strict, but it ought to have your name there
... approve the minutes with this amendment?
...
...
...

Ashok: resolved

last meeting

Ashok: what we did was to go through the last call comments
... spent lot of time on david's comments
... and then the comments on the wiki

<Ashok> http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/rdb2rdf/wiki/Last_Call#5_DM_and_R2RML:_comments_on_working_drafts

Ashok: we went to the first 8 of those
... we did not do Ivan's because he had some comments on the direct mapping, but we did not have eric and juan on the call
... but we do not have eric right now either
... juan is on irc only
... we have seema and souri here, let us do number 10

<Ashok> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdb2rdf-comments/2011Oct/0001.html

Ivan: I have received a mail from Richard, and have answered to them; I am o.k. with the comments for the Last Call document
... I have some issues on the examples, but that does not refer to the LC document, we can handle them later

<Souri> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdb2rdf-wg/2011Nov/0025.html (Ivan's reply to Richard's changes)

<juansequeda> Ivan's comments on the DM are just editorial, right?

Ashok: we skip comment 11 because that is on DM
... let us look number 12 from David

http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdb2rdf-comments/2011Oct/0007.html

Ashok, is that resolved?

dmcneil: yes, this is the same issue, and having talked to Richard and the new version has changed
... I suppose that will take my comments into account

<Souri> modified section in the editorial draft: http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/rdb2rdf/r2rml/#logical-tables

Ashok: next is from Fabian Pijcke, number 13

<Ashok> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdb2rdf-comments/2011Oct/0008.html

Ashok: he is having difficulties creating identifiers
... he wants to have specific construct

<dmcneil> +q

Ashok: does this make sense?

Souri: he is try to say that a processor should generate instead of the r2rml author having to write that

Ashok: he wants a construct

<Ashok> rr:subjectMap [ rr:termType rr:BlankNode; ];

dmcneil: there is a separate discussion... what he wants a to do is to generate r2rm to generate direct mapping?
... the final message (and Richard sent him) is that this is a feature in sql
... he agreed with that

Ashok: but sql is not doing to do that

dmcneil: true, but this is recognition that this is not something we can do

<Ashok> Response: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdb2rdf-comments/2011Nov/0017.html

Ashok: so we have to wait for his answer
... Issue #14, datatype mapping question, this is richard and eric
... they seem to look at it quite differently
... skip it now
... number 15

<Ashok> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdb2rdf-wg/2011Nov/0000.html

Souri: I have something more
... the idea from my point of view that we have to distinguish the plus that is already in the data to handle it
... part of a URI

<Souri> "C++ 2.3.0"

Souri: if that is a key, I should be able to distinguish between '+'
... but richard asked why not using the encoding in the draft, ie, a % encoding
... i was expecting that type of encoding

Ashok: you would encode characters in the value and that would get you around it?

Souri: yes

<Souri> "C++ 2.3.0" should become "C++%202.3.0"

Ashok: if you are o.k. with this solution, could you send a clear reply to this and we can close this

Souri: Richard has already started a thread on that one on the comment list
... the latest email

<Souri> Here is the latest email on this thread about PLUS sign: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdb2rdf-wg/2011Nov/0002.html

Ashok: souri, if you are happy with this, you should answer

Souri: but this has to be agreed upon for the DM, and the DM editors should look at it
... this is really for the DM editors

juansequeda: for me, it is fine
... but eric should also reply

Souri: I can reply that I am happy, and ask the dm editors explicitly

Ashok: Juan, there were a number of dm issues that we postponed because you were not here
... would you like to go through them?

juansequeda: these are mostly editorial

Ashok: editorials was from ivan and fabian
... but these are lc issues, we have to be formal
... you have to tell us if you agreed

juansequeda: I will go through those in the next 2 days

Ashok: look at the wiki, look at the comments, look at particular comments 9, 11, and then the last one we talked about, 15, and then reply to us

ACTIOn juansequeda to look at the comments 9, 11 and 15 and reply to them officially

<trackbot> Sorry, couldn't find user - juansequeda

ACTION juan to look at the comments 9, 11 and 15 and reply to them officially

<trackbot> Created ACTION-167 - Look at the comments 9, 11 and 15 and reply to them officially [on Juan Sequeda - due 2011-11-15].

Raised Issues

ISSUE-68?

<trackbot> ISSUE-68 -- Multiple PredicateMaps in a PredicateObjectMap -- raised

<trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/rdb2rdf/track/issues/68

Ashok: we have spoken on this
... I have the feeling that souri and richard do not agree on this

<Souri> Issue-68: P{+}O shortcut

<trackbot> ISSUE-68 Multiple PredicateMaps in a PredicateObjectMap notes added

<Souri> PO{+}

Souri: my opinion is that it is not critical for us to put in this shortcut
... why not adding other shortuts
... the amount of additional writing is not much
... you can always define the object map to be uri, and use that again and again
... we have to be conservative on shortcuts

Ashok: the only thing we can do is to open the issue
... We agree to open issue 68

Ivan: how do we decide that?

Ashok: one of the telco when we get both of them, we have to agreement on that

ISSUE-69?

<trackbot> ISSUE-69 -- datatype sizes -- raised

<trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/rdb2rdf/track/issues/69

Ashok: this is related to the earlier issues
... is this related to making one mapping

ericP: Everybody wants to have one
... Richard and I did a different approach
... those reflect on what the recipes should look like
... his notion is 'here is the recipe to convert stuff from db to rdf, the precision depends on the db'
... my approach is that it is a fixed values for that, and here is the scheme you should follow if you extend

Ashok: let us just open this, then we should discuss when both of you are here we should discuss it

ericP: we are both pretty good in describing our opinion
... and also the other's opinion
... we know what to do for any opinion
... we are at the point that really the wg has to decide
... the other question is whether we rely on xsd or on sql

Ashok: rdf uses xsd, right?

ericP: rdf core does not say that you should use the canonical forms of the xsd types

Ashok: this is not our business, but worth taking up with the rdf core guys

ericP: if they do not do that, and xsd does not really care about this, then it is our business

Ashok: let open the issue
... we agreed to open issue 69

ISSUE-70?

<trackbot> ISSUE-70 -- Behaviour of fully qualified column names in rr:sqlQuery -- raised

<trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/rdb2rdf/track/issues/70

Souri: we have discussed this issue last week
... it needs to be opened

Ashok: let us open it
... decided to open issue 70

ISSUE-71?

<trackbot> ISSUE-71 -- Column name collisions between child and parent queries in RefObjectMaps -- raised

<trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/rdb2rdf/track/issues/71

Ashok: I think we also talked about it
... open it?
... no objection, let us open 71

ISSUE-72?

<trackbot> ISSUE-72 -- Bring back R2RML lookup tables -- raised

<trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/rdb2rdf/track/issues/72

Ashok: let us open it for when richard is on the call

Souri: we came up with a proposal that is simpler than the other one, that is why we decided to drop it
... there are two proposals sitting there
... that is the status

Ashok: let us open this issue 72

ISSUE-73?

<trackbot> ISSUE-73 -- Section 11 cleanup -- raised

<trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/rdb2rdf/track/issues/73

Ashok: this is again david's comment
... we should open this and wait until we can do 68 and 72
... objections?
...
...
... let us open issue 73

ISSUE-74?

<trackbot> ISSUE-74 -- Re-organize the table in Appendix B.2 -- raised

<trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/rdb2rdf/track/issues/74

Ashok, we should open this, too

scribe: david says that when cliking on the document he gets to the schema document
... but then somebody pointed out that the schema document is a separate document

dmcneil: ivan addressed it and the issue is for the table

Ashok: let open issue 74, too

ISSUE-75?

<trackbot> ISSUE-75 -- Reconsider rr:tableName syntactic sugar -- raised

<trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/rdb2rdf/track/issues/75

Ashok: this is again david's comment
... this requires discussion
... this is also a shortcut, righ?
... Let us open 75, and discuss it later

<Souri> Since Eric is here, we can also bring up the percent-encoding issue (that came up from my PLUS sign related comment) for a introductory discussion

ISSUE-57?

<trackbot> ISSUE-57 -- R2RML doesn't allow R2RML documents in RDF/XML syntax -- raised

<trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/rdb2rdf/track/issues/57

Ivan: this is a leftover, was actually opened by the facts...

Ashok: eric, there were 3 lc comments on dm, if you could look at them to answer them; juan has taken an action, numbers 9, 11 and 15

<Souri> also, PLUS sign comment

Ashok: if you could look at them

Eric: yes, will do

Ashok: I am encouraged by the progress, some of these issues are tiny
... there are a couple of big ones

Meeting adjurned