15:44:46 <RRSAgent> RRSAgent has joined #rdb2rdf
15:44:46 <RRSAgent> logging to http://www.w3.org/2010/05/25-rdb2rdf-irc
15:44:48 <trackbot> RRSAgent, make logs world
15:44:48 <Zakim> Zakim has joined #rdb2rdf
15:44:50 <trackbot> Zakim, this will be 7322733
15:44:50 <Zakim> ok, trackbot; I see SW_RDB2RDF()12:00PM scheduled to start in 16 minutes
15:44:51 <trackbot> Meeting: RDB2RDF Working Group Teleconference
15:44:51 <trackbot> Date: 25 May 2010
15:46:57 <Marcelo> Marcelo has joined #rdb2rdf
15:48:21 <mhausenblas> well, if that's the only way to do it, yes
15:48:24 <boris> boris has joined #RDB2RDF
15:48:53 <mhausenblas> but, the problem was that I put <scope> somewhere in the logs which made the XSLT go crazy
15:48:57 <mhausenblas> hence I had to remove it
15:49:08 <mhausenblas> I don't want to risk to have a screwed version now online
15:51:23 <mhausenblas> juansequeda, re your two comments:
15:51:48 <mhausenblas> "I think that the  first sentence of the second paragraph of UC1 is a bit confusing: "...corresponding to RDF HL7/RIM and CDISK SDTM ontology in RDFS" ... this is too detailed
15:51:58 <mhausenblas> I don't want to open can of worms, again
15:52:12 <mhausenblas> talking about certain words or whatever
15:52:24 <mhausenblas> re " 4.1.2. It use to be TRANSFORM a" - that was me
15:52:49 <mhausenblas> if you think TRANSFORM is better, then fine with me, can change it back (will take a note now)
15:52:53 <mhausenblas> juansequeda, ok?
15:53:41 <juansequeda> about the first comment, I understand it as RDF ontology in RDFS ... is this correct?
15:53:53 <Seema> Seema has joined #rdb2rdf
15:54:35 <mhausenblas> juansequeda yes - I directly applied edits as proposed by ... lemme look up
15:57:56 <mhausenblas> ouch - that was actually your proposal, juansequeda 
15:57:58 <mhausenblas> see http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdb2rdf-wg/2010May/0084.html
15:58:15 <mhausenblas> "Accompanying each table are two RDF views (represented in Turtle) corresponding to the HL7/RIM and CDISK SDFTM ontology in RDFS."
15:58:19 <Zakim> SW_RDB2RDF()12:00PM has now started
15:58:26 <Zakim> +boris
15:59:03 <mhausenblas> Zakim, code?
15:59:03 <Zakim> the conference code is 7322733 (tel:+1.617.761.6200 tel:+33.4.89.06.34.99 tel:+44.117.370.6152), mhausenblas
15:59:12 <Zakim> +mhausenblas
15:59:17 <mhausenblas> Agenda: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdb2rdf-wg/2010May/0100.html
15:59:19 <Zakim> +Marcelo
15:59:24 <mhausenblas> Chair: Ahmed
15:59:32 <mhausenblas> regrets+ Soeren
15:59:43 <juansequeda> mhausenblas, we need to drop "RDF" before "HL7/RIM"
16:00:06 <mhausenblas> juansequeda? are you now redoing your comments?
16:00:18 <mhausenblas> I'm totally confused
16:00:19 <Zakim> +seema
16:00:25 <Zakim> +??P0
16:00:28 <Zakim> +Lee_Feigenbaum
16:00:29 <Ashok> Ashok has joined #rdb2rdf
16:00:40 <Ahmed> Ahmed has joined #RDB2RDF
16:00:48 <mhausenblas> Zakim, who's here?
16:00:48 <Zakim> On the phone I see boris, mhausenblas, Marcelo, seema, ??P0, Lee_Feigenbaum
16:00:50 <Zakim> On IRC I see Ahmed, Ashok, Seema, boris, Marcelo, Zakim, RRSAgent, hhalpin, juansequeda, LeeF, nunolopes, mhausenblas, iv_an_ru, trackbot, ericP
16:00:54 <whalb> whalb has joined #rdb2rdf
16:01:04 <alexander> alexander has joined #RDB2RDF
16:01:10 <mhausenblas> Zakim, nunolopes is with me
16:01:10 <Zakim> +nunolopes; got it
16:01:16 <mhausenblas> scribenick: hhalpin 
16:01:27 <Zakim> +Ashok_Malhotra
16:01:42 <juansequeda> mhausenblas, my comment said "... corresponding to the HL7/RIM and CDISK SDFTM ontology in RDFS." the doc has "...corresponding to RDF HL7/RIM and CDISK SDTM ontology in RDFS"  Anyways, just a minor comment but it caught my attention immediately when I was reading the doc.
16:01:47 <Zakim> +souri
16:01:52 <Zakim> +whalb
16:02:12 <Souri> Souri has joined #rdb2rdf
16:02:22 <cygri> cygri has joined #rdb2rdf
16:02:24 <mhausenblas> Zakim, cygri is with mhausenblas 
16:02:24 <Zakim> +cygri; got it
16:02:37 <mhausenblas> ah, ok, juansequeda - in that case it's a simple typo ;)
16:02:40 <Zakim> +[IPcaller]
16:02:41 <mhausenblas> will fix, yes
16:02:54 <juansequeda> mhausenblas, yup! btw, im on the call but muted
16:03:42 <mhausenblas> Zakim, who's here?
16:03:42 <Zakim> On the phone I see boris, mhausenblas, Marcelo, seema, ??P0, Lee_Feigenbaum, Ashok_Malhotra, souri, whalb, [IPcaller]
16:03:44 <Zakim> mhausenblas has mhausenblas, nunolopes, cygri
16:03:45 <Zakim> On IRC I see cygri, Souri, alexander, whalb, Ahmed, Ashok, Seema, boris, Marcelo, Zakim, RRSAgent, hhalpin, juansequeda, LeeF, nunolopes, mhausenblas, iv_an_ru, trackbot, ericP
16:04:08 <Souri> zakim, who is on the phone?
16:04:08 <Zakim> On the phone I see boris, mhausenblas, Marcelo, seema, ??P0, Lee_Feigenbaum, Ashok_Malhotra, souri, whalb, [IPcaller]
16:04:10 <Zakim> mhausenblas has mhausenblas, nunolopes, cygri
16:04:16 <mhausenblas> scribenick: mhausenblas 
16:04:22 <mhausenblas> Topic: Admin
16:04:36 <mhausenblas> PROPOSAL: accept minutes from last meeting http://www.w3.org/2010/05/18-rdb2rdf-minutes.html
16:05:06 <Souri> ahmed, I am here
16:06:01 <Zakim> +??P15
16:06:09 <hhalpin> Zakim, ??P15 is hhalpin
16:06:09 <Zakim> +hhalpin; got it
16:06:25 <hhalpin> +1
16:07:47 <alexander> +1
16:08:02 <mhausenblas> RESOLUTION: WG has accepted the minutes from last meeting http://www.w3.org/2010/05/18-rdb2rdf-minutes.html
16:08:11 <mhausenblas> scribenick: hhalpin 
16:08:33 <hhalpin> Ahmed: What's more important to get document out soon or to get a reasonably good document?
16:08:39 <hhalpin> Ashok: the document is much better now
16:08:46 <LeeF> I think it's more important to get document out soon.
16:08:49 <hhalpin> ... other than a few questions
16:08:56 <hhalpin> ... I think we can publish it.
16:09:07 <mhausenblas> ACTION-55?
16:09:07 <trackbot> ACTION-55 -- Michael Hausenblas to will send out the exact date (perhaps the day before and/or after) with a proposed concrete date to the list -- due 2010-05-25 -- OPEN
16:09:07 <trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/rdb2rdf/track/actions/55
16:09:29 <hhalpin> topic: Face-to-face meeting
16:09:33 <Zakim> +??P17
16:09:38 <hhalpin> mhausenblas: 20th of June seems acceptable
16:09:48 <hhalpin> ... I don't see any counter-proposals?
16:09:52 <Souri> what would be the duration?
16:09:55 <LeeF> Regrets for the 20th of June, I will not be able to make it
16:10:22 <hhalpin> Notes that either me or EricP will be there, but not necessarily both.
16:10:33 <mhausenblas> close ACTION-55
16:10:33 <trackbot> ACTION-55 Will send out the exact date (perhaps the day before and/or after) with a proposed concrete date to the list closed
16:10:36 <mhausenblas> ACTION 56?
16:10:36 <trackbot> Sorry, bad ACTION syntax
16:10:58 <mhausenblas> ACTION-56?
16:10:58 <trackbot> ACTION-56 -- Michael Hausenblas to create a wikipage for face-to-face -- due 2010-05-25 -- OPEN
16:10:58 <trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/rdb2rdf/track/actions/56
16:11:30 <hhalpin> q+
16:11:52 <hhalpin> topic: Comments on Use-case document
16:12:13 <hhalpin> Ashok: There were many comments, but Michael seems to have addressed most of them, so I'm happy with document.
16:12:25 <hhalpin> ... with two of the use-cases we have to speak of which what requirements come from the use-case?
16:12:30 <hhalpin> ... this is still to do.
16:12:42 <hhalpin> ... I also felt some things could be taken out
16:12:47 <hhalpin> ... but there isn't agreement on that.
16:12:52 <Seema> yes.. i can barely hear the speakers
16:12:56 <hhalpin> ... but think we can publish regardless
16:13:04 <hhalpin> Ahmed: Which parts to take out?
16:13:19 <hhalpin> Ashok: I wanted to remove Section 1 there is the scope and why is a standard needed.
16:13:34 <hhalpin> ... I argue that this should be removed because that is stuff we spoke about in charter
16:13:41 <hhalpin> ... and this is a requirement document.
16:13:45 <hhalpin> ... so it doesn't require it.
16:13:56 <hhalpin> ... the other thing, which is more controversial
16:13:59 <boris> it's muted
16:14:05 <hhalpin> ... I would take out the section on Approaches.
16:14:09 <mhausenblas> q+
16:14:13 <hhalpin> ... I don't think that adds anything.
16:14:19 <mhausenblas> ack hhalpin 
16:14:21 <mhausenblas> q?
16:15:13 <mhausenblas> ack mhausenblas 
16:15:19 <Souri> but I think Ashok was pointing about 1.3 (scope)
16:15:25 <LeeF> Why do we need to convince them? Wasn't sufficient convincing accomplished when the W3C membership approved our charter?
16:15:46 <mhausenblas> http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/rdb2rdf/use-cases/
16:15:54 <hhalpin> hhalpin: I think we should keep 1.1. and 1.2 in because there were some people in the community that have not understood why a standard is needed here, so the charter was not clear enough, even if the general thinking was there.
16:16:25 <hhalpin> hhalpin: LeeF - the reason is that some of the people who were not convinced were not amateurs, but folks like Chris Bizer whose work is well-known in the community.
16:16:33 <mhausenblas> http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/rdb2rdf/wiki/Use_Cases_and_Requirements/Reviews#Open_Issues
16:16:59 <hhalpin> hhalpin: also, the exact text I asked to be added in 1.1 and 1.2 was written after a multi-hour W3C Team discussion.
16:17:12 <hhalpin> hhalpin: about why this standard was important.
16:17:16 <LeeF> hhalpin, sure, but... so? So Chris won't implement the standard... I'm just not sure it's a good use of our time to try to convince everyone we consider influential
16:17:40 <LeeF> note that i'm happy to keep it too, i don't feel strongly :)
16:17:56 <hhalpin> LeeF: but it is worthwhile to convince say Team members. Just saying that this standard is a bit different than HTML5, where need for standardization is a bit more obvious
16:18:13 <LeeF> hhalpin, ack
16:18:16 <Ahmed> q+
16:18:24 <hhalpin> Ashok: I would take out 1.3, happy to keep 1.1 and 1.2
16:18:37 <mhausenblas> q?
16:18:40 <mhausenblas> ack Ahmed 
16:18:50 <juansequeda> What is the argument to drop the glossary?
16:18:55 <hhalpin> Ahmed: I also have comments on Section 1.3
16:19:51 <hhalpin> PROPOSAL: To remove 1.1 and 1.2
16:20:18 <mhausenblas> Michael: that;s not a good idea, should stay in there
16:20:21 <Seema> since the sections are already done, i don't see the harm in keeping them
16:20:23 <Ashok> Juan, the glossary was incomplete.  It's a lot better now
16:20:40 <hhalpin> hhalpin: I would prefer to keep them, but happy to move glossary to end, where it makes more sense.
16:20:45 <mhausenblas> PROPOSAL: KEep section 1.1 and 1.2
16:20:53 <hhalpin> +1
16:20:54 <alexander> +1
16:20:55 <Seema> +1
16:20:56 <boris> +1
16:20:58 <nunolopes> +1
16:21:02 <Souri> I agree with Ashok that UC&R is not the most appropriate place for these sections, but I am okay with keeping it
16:21:04 <Marcelo> +1
16:21:14 <hhalpin> Ashok: OK, am ok with keeping these sections.
16:21:20 <hhalpin> RESOLUTION: To keep Section 1.1 and 1.2
16:21:33 <mhausenblas> sec. 1.3 Glossary clarification 
16:22:34 <juansequeda> Even if we have terms that are TBD, that at least shows everybody that we need to agree on terms. This is vital! We all need to agree on the same terminology
16:22:49 <mhausenblas> PROPOSAL: Keep sec 1.3 for now
16:22:50 <hhalpin> PROPOSAL: Section 1.3 (Glossary) should be kept.
16:23:01 <cygri> +1
16:23:03 <Souri> +1
16:23:03 <hhalpin> hhalpin: I think it should be kept but moved to end, where glossaries normally are found :)
16:23:05 <boris> +1
16:23:06 <alexander> +1
16:23:06 <juansequeda> +1
16:23:09 <hhalpin> +1
16:23:15 <Souri> I agree with harry
16:23:24 <mhausenblas> sec. 2 Use Cases: Ashok suggests to change this completely into two different classifications 
16:23:26 <juansequeda> +1 to harry's comment
16:23:31 <hhalpin> mhausenblas: perhaps move it to the end?
16:23:31 <Seema> +1 to Harry
16:23:37 <mhausenblas> see http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/rdb2rdf/wiki/Ashok%27s_UCR_Review
16:23:41 <hhalpin> q+
16:24:22 <hhalpin> Ashok: What I wanted is a different and separate point
16:25:09 <hhalpin> Ashok: wanted to differentiate the use-cases more
16:25:23 <hhalpin> ... there are too many things going on in some of the use-cases
16:25:41 <hhalpin> mhausenblas: I see your point, but not sure what to do, happy with way it is currently
16:25:48 <mhausenblas> ack hhalpin 
16:26:50 <Zakim> + +1.512.471.aaaa
16:27:35 <hhalpin> mhausenblas: I don't care, it's a style
16:27:52 <hhalpin> ... in order to give people an idea of terms before using them
16:28:00 <hhalpin> PROPOSAL: Move glossary to end?
16:28:03 <hhalpin> +1
16:28:06 <Dan> Dan has joined #RDB2RDF
16:28:10 <mhausenblas> Zakim, aaaa is Dan 
16:28:10 <Zakim> +Dan; got it
16:28:21 <cygri> -1
16:28:44 <mhausenblas> -1
16:28:48 <alexander> +1
16:28:50 <juansequeda> +1
16:28:54 <boris> +1
16:28:56 <Seema> +1
16:28:59 <Marcelo> +1
16:29:01 <Souri> +1
16:29:19 <hhalpin> RESOLUTION: Keep glossary, move to end.
16:30:03 <hhalpin> mhausenblas: It would require a large amount of editorial work, but maybe we can do it after getting out first public working draft
16:30:22 <hhalpin> Ashok: We are open to editing it?
16:30:29 <hhalpin> mhausenblas: we are open to editing it.
16:30:45 <hhalpin> hhalpin: notes we should have quite a few months to edit it before final publication
16:31:01 <hhalpin> PROPOSAL: Keep Section 2 as is, but keep working on it before final version
16:31:09 <mhausenblas> +1
16:31:10 <hhalpin> +1
16:31:12 <juansequeda> +1
16:31:26 <boris> +1
16:31:39 <mhausenblas> http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/rdb2rdf/use-cases/#WP-req
16:31:53 <hhalpin> RESOLUTION: Keep Section 2 as is, but keep working on it before final version released
16:32:03 <hhalpin> PROPOSAL: Section 2.2 
16:32:22 <mhausenblas> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdb2rdf-wg/2010May/0083.html
16:32:37 <hhalpin> hhalpin: notes that we're doing this pretty informally, if anyone has an objection, please type it in IRC and then we'll go through a formal consensus process
16:32:48 <mhausenblas> juansequeda:  I believe that Ashok's suggestions are wrong. The wordpress example is not mapping to a RDF Schema derived from the Relational Schema.The use-case says "a mapping should be able to reuse existing vocabularies" If I'm not wrong, this use-case maps to SIOC, DublinCore, FOAF. Furthermore, where does it state that this use-case is for ETL? This use-case uses Triplfy which actually creates a virtual RDF graph. 
16:33:27 <juansequeda> If i
16:33:39 <juansequeda> If I understand correctly, triplify is not about ETL
16:33:42 <mhausenblas> ADD at the end: This usecase leads to the following requirements
16:33:42 <mhausenblas>     * Map Relational data to an RDF schema derived from the Relational Schema
16:33:42 <mhausenblas>     * Extract-Transform-Load the RDF created by the mapping . 
16:34:17 <hhalpin> Ashok: Juan is possibly correct, but that was my interpreation upon my first look at it
16:34:24 <juansequeda> Shouldn't all use-cases allow ETL ?
16:34:30 <hhalpin> Ashok: Juan, you're positive about this?
16:34:36 <Ahmed> q+
16:34:39 <juansequeda> i didnt understand the question
16:34:51 <mhausenblas> ack Ahmed 
16:35:00 <hhalpin> juan - are you SURE you are correct?
16:35:18 <hhalpin> Ahmed: I am not in favour of allowing all use-cases leading to ETL
16:35:19 <hhalpin> +1 Ahmed
16:35:46 <juansequeda> About my understanding of the wordpress UC with triplify? I am not sure. This is my understanding. Soeren is the person to ask
16:35:55 <Ashok> +1 to Ahmed
16:36:00 <mhausenblas> http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/rdb2rdf/use-cases/#WP-req
16:36:03 <hhalpin> mhausenblas: Which requirement goes with use-case number 2
16:36:46 <juansequeda> No, if i understand, triplify doesnt allow query
16:37:00 <juansequeda> actually, thinking about this.. I'm fine if the ETL is the req for the UC
16:37:16 <juansequeda> what does everybody else think?
16:37:26 <hhalpin> I'm happy either way
16:37:39 <juansequeda> it's a working draft... so it's ok :)
16:37:40 <Ashok> How about ETL?
16:37:46 <hhalpin> mhausenblas: no objections, so let's include that requirement
16:38:04 <mhausenblas> PROPOSAL: add 'Extract-Transform-Load the RDF created by the mapping .' to UC2 reqs
16:38:19 <hhalpin> +1
16:38:39 <Ahmed> q+
16:38:47 <mhausenblas> ack Ahmed 
16:38:56 <hhalpin> Ashok: Do we have a requirement like that?
16:39:01 <hhalpin> mhausenblas: Not sure.
16:39:13 <hhalpin> Ahmed: We should have support for both on demand and ETL.
16:39:19 <mhausenblas> s/Not sure/No
16:39:24 <hhalpin> mhausenblas: no objections, so we'll add that.
16:39:40 <mhausenblas> ACTION: mhausenblas to update UC2 reqs re ETL
16:39:40 <trackbot> Sorry, couldn't find user - mhausenblas
16:39:46 <mhausenblas> ACTION: mhausenb to update UC2 reqs re ETL
16:39:47 <trackbot> Created ACTION-57 - Update UC2 reqs re ETL [on Michael Hausenblas - due 2010-06-01].
16:40:11 <mhausenblas> UC4 reqs
16:40:12 <mhausenblas> http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/rdb2rdf/use-cases/#rCAD-req
16:40:15 <hhalpin> Ashok: I'd like to ask Juan, what requirements can we get out of use-case 4?
16:40:17 <juansequeda> for UC4 mapping to domain ontology
16:40:23 <hhalpin> Ashok: given that it's your use-case
16:40:23 <juansequeda> direct mapping,
16:41:03 <juansequeda> For the first part, we need direct mapping, for the second part we need transform mapping
16:41:05 <juansequeda> exactly!
16:41:29 <juansequeda> sounds good!
16:41:29 <mhausenblas> RRSAgent, draft minutes
16:41:29 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2010/05/25-rdb2rdf-minutes.html mhausenblas
16:41:35 <mhausenblas> RRSAgent, make logs public
16:41:52 <juansequeda> im on the call but muted
16:42:09 <mhausenblas> PROPOSAL: Use reqs from section 4 to update UC4
16:42:49 <alexander> +1
16:42:51 <hhalpin> +1
16:42:53 <boris> +1
16:43:22 <juansequeda> +1
16:43:32 <hhalpin> RESOLUTION: Use reqs from Section 4 to update UC4
16:43:34 <mhausenblas> ACTION: mhausenb to update UC4 reqs with section 4 input
16:43:34 <trackbot> Created ACTION-58 - Update UC4 reqs with section 4 input [on Michael Hausenblas - due 2010-06-01].
16:43:45 <mhausenblas> Why remove sec. 3? 
16:44:02 <mhausenblas> Ashok: I don’t think this section adds anything to the document. I recommend we remove it 
16:44:16 <Souri> I had a comment on the OWL-DL excerpt used in the rCAD example: what benefit does the excerpt serve to the reader?
16:44:22 <mhausenblas> juansequeda: I would like to know who thinks this needs to be removed. As I have mentioned before, I created these images so we could internally get on the same page. I wasn't expecting this to get into the doc. However, seeing this now in the document, I believe adds context in how the mappings can generated. 
16:44:40 <Souri> sure
16:44:52 <hhalpin> hhalpin: I'm OK either way
16:45:33 <juansequeda> Souri, most of the biology domain ontologies are in OBO and when transformed are in OWL DL. So we need to have a mapping that needs to map to this type of ontology. 
16:45:37 <hhalpin> mhausenblas: Not sure what the proposal is here, "What does reader get out of.."
16:45:49 <Souri> q+
16:46:01 <mhausenblas> ack Souri 
16:46:42 <hhalpin> Souri: I can see how it would be of use, but it has very little connection with the schema that was there before it, so I don't really see the relevance of the excerpt
16:46:51 <hhalpin> ... why not just put the whole example, and then a link off to it
16:47:03 <hhalpin> ... so they can see the whole thing, the excerpt there seems not very useful
16:47:18 <hhalpin> ... my proposal is to be a link to it, not a full excerpt
16:47:33 <hhalpin> PROPOSAL: To put a link to the excerpt in the OBO example, not a full excerpt
16:47:39 <hhalpin> mhausenblas: any thoughts?
16:47:40 <Souri> "full excerpt" -> "excerpt"
16:47:55 <hhalpin> juan: I'm fine with a link to the ontology
16:48:09 <hhalpin> ... just trying to give an example to domain ontology, I'm happy with a link to the domain ontology
16:48:15 <hhalpin> mhausenblas: Can you provide me with a link?
16:48:17 <juansequeda> ok, I'll email it to you. because the public link is the OBO ontology
16:48:39 <hhalpin> mhausenblas: seems like a resolution to this.
16:48:51 <mhausenblas> "This is just part of the Multiple Alignment Ontology in OWL DL"
16:49:13 <mhausenblas> "This is just part of the <a href="">Multiple Alignment Ontology</a> in OWL DL"
16:49:21 <juansequeda> yup!
16:49:29 <hhalpin> +1
16:49:31 <juansequeda> +1
16:49:35 <Souri> +1
16:49:46 <Ahmed> +
16:49:51 <Ahmed> q+
16:49:55 <hhalpin> RESOLUTION: To put a link to the full excerpt in the OBO example, not an excerpt
16:49:58 <Souri> q+
16:50:08 <mhausenblas> ACTION: mhausenb to update 2.4.2, last para with "This is just part of the <a href="">Multiple Alignment Ontology</a> in OWL DL and remove code frag
16:50:09 <trackbot> Created ACTION-59 - Update 2.4.2, last para with "This is just part of the <a href="">Multiple Alignment Ontology</a> in OWL DL and remove code frag [on Michael Hausenblas - due 2010-06-01].
16:50:12 <mhausenblas> q
16:50:13 <mhausenblas> q?
16:50:16 <mhausenblas> ack Ahmed 
16:50:38 <Souri> q-
16:51:04 <hhalpin> mhausenblas: let's make sure you can be here
16:51:32 <Zakim> -??P17
16:51:36 <mhausenblas> http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/rdb2rdf/wiki/Ahmed%27s_UCR_Review
16:51:38 <hhalpin> Ahmed's comments are:
16:52:04 <hhalpin> Ahmed: Has everyone read your comments?
16:52:31 <hhalpin> Ahmed: Approaches should be moved to appendix
16:52:32 <Zakim> -whalb
16:52:42 <hhalpin> I'm OK either way
16:52:55 <mhausenblas> PROPOSAL: Move 3 Approaches to Appendix
16:52:57 <juansequeda> +1
16:53:04 <Ashok> +1
16:53:17 <hhalpin> +1
16:53:23 <alexander> +1
16:53:26 <Souri> +1
16:53:31 <hhalpin> RESOLUTION: Section 3 should be moved to Appendix
16:53:32 <boris> +1
16:53:46 <hhalpin> Ahmed: The motivations are covered in a somewhat scattered way throughout the text
16:54:01 <hhalpin> mhausenblas: I have included both of your proposals in the new draft
16:54:12 <hhalpin> Ahmed: For a draft, I'm OK.
16:54:25 <hhalpin> Ahmed: Why do people do automatic transformation rather than just use SQL?
16:54:33 <hhalpin> ... for analytics etc.
16:55:06 <hhalpin> Ashok: the answer is that if you want to combine different sources of RDF then you can do it.
16:55:23 <Souri> Aside For Sec 3, I would suggest replacing the names of WG people with more generic names
16:55:30 <hhalpin> Ahmed: I agree, again, the problem is that SQL failed at data integration, and this is where RDF
16:55:36 <hhalpin> +1 Souri
16:56:03 <hhalpin> Ahmed: I think if we can add it in motivation
16:56:11 <hhalpin> ... it would highlight the main problem.
16:56:16 <hhalpin> q+
16:57:12 <hhalpin> q- hhalpin
16:57:21 <hhalpin> Ahmed: My main issues were with section 3
16:57:53 <hhalpin> mhausenblas: my main comment was I'm not sure how to phrase all these as proposals.
16:58:24 <hhalpin> Ahmed: Let's go over them one by one
16:58:41 <hhalpin> ... particularly the vocabulary
16:58:48 <hhalpin> ... sometimes I'm not sure about
16:58:54 <hhalpin> q+
16:59:29 <hhalpin> +1 Ahmed
16:59:40 <Souri> if possible we should consider discussing this over email because as far as I understand, this probably will not affect the publishing of FPD of UC&R
17:01:03 <juansequeda> Can't we just finish this over email? 
17:01:24 <hhalpin> Ashok: Would it be OK if I spoke for you and we went through your comments?
17:02:50 <hhalpin> hhalpin: Could we try to have another telecon earlier than next Tuesday?
17:02:57 <hhalpin> Ashok: Friday afternoon?
17:03:16 <hhalpin> 1 PM on Friday is 10 PM.
17:03:32 <juansequeda> Why can
17:03:34 <juansequeda> Why can
17:03:39 <juansequeda> Why can't this be done by email?
17:03:57 <mhausenblas> Michael: we should postpone as Ahmed is not around and can't agree
17:04:00 <LeeF> juansequeda++
17:04:14 <LeeF> Why can't this be done via email? 
17:04:30 <Souri> next Thursday means 03-Jun-2010? or 10-Jun-2010?
17:04:38 <mhausenblas> Michael: I would also prefer this, but Ahmed insist on going through all of his comments personally
17:05:15 <juansequeda> No answer to our question: why can't this be done over email?
17:05:28 <Ahmed> I said that I rather prefer prsenting my issues myself ...
17:05:42 <mhausenblas> Ahmed: however
17:06:59 <hhalpin> Ashok: Both me and Ahmed wanted Database connection removed.
17:07:02 <Zakim> -??P0
17:07:23 <hhalpin> mhausenblas: ericP put that in there, but I think soeren wanted it.
17:07:37 <Zakim> -mhausenblas
17:07:39 <Zakim> -Lee_Feigenbaum
17:07:41 <Zakim> -souri
17:07:41 <Zakim> -Ashok_Malhotra
17:07:43 <Zakim> -seema
17:07:44 <hhalpin> Meeting adjourned.
17:07:46 <Zakim> -Marcelo
17:07:48 <Zakim> -boris
17:07:56 <Zakim> -Dan
17:08:03 <Zakim> -[IPcaller]
17:09:00 <hhalpin> RRSAgent, draft minutes
17:09:00 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2010/05/25-rdb2rdf-minutes.html hhalpin
17:09:11 <hhalpin> trackbot, meeting adjourned
17:09:11 <trackbot> Sorry, hhalpin, I don't understand 'trackbot, meeting adjourned'. Please refer to http://www.w3.org/2005/06/tracker/irc for help
17:09:52 <nunolopes> nunolopes has joined #RDB2RDF
17:14:38 <LeeF> trackbot, end meeting
17:14:38 <trackbot> Zakim, list attendees
17:14:38 <Zakim> As of this point the attendees have been boris, mhausenblas, Marcelo, seema, Lee_Feigenbaum, nunolopes, Ashok_Malhotra, souri, whalb, cygri, [IPcaller], hhalpin, +1.512.471.aaaa,
17:14:39 <trackbot> RRSAgent, please draft minutes
17:14:39 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2010/05/25-rdb2rdf-minutes.html trackbot
17:14:40 <trackbot> RRSAgent, bye
17:14:40 <RRSAgent> I see 4 open action items saved in http://www.w3.org/2010/05/25-rdb2rdf-actions.rdf :
17:14:40 <RRSAgent> ACTION: mhausenblas to update UC2 reqs re ETL [1]
17:14:40 <RRSAgent>   recorded in http://www.w3.org/2010/05/25-rdb2rdf-irc#T16-39-40
17:14:40 <RRSAgent> ACTION: mhausenb to update UC2 reqs re ETL [2]
17:14:40 <RRSAgent>   recorded in http://www.w3.org/2010/05/25-rdb2rdf-irc#T16-39-46
17:14:40 <RRSAgent> ACTION: mhausenb to update UC4 reqs with section 4 input [3]
17:14:40 <RRSAgent>   recorded in http://www.w3.org/2010/05/25-rdb2rdf-irc#T16-43-34
17:14:40 <RRSAgent> ACTION: mhausenb to update 2.4.2, last para with "This is just part of the <a href="">Multiple Alignment Ontology</a> in OWL DL and remove code frag [4]
17:14:40 <RRSAgent>   recorded in http://www.w3.org/2010/05/25-rdb2rdf-irc#T16-50-08
17:14:42 <Zakim> ... Dan