<Ashok> rackbot, start the meeting

<Ashok> trackbot, start the meeting

<trackbot> Meeting: RDB2RDF Working Group Teleconference

<trackbot> Date: 06 March 2012

<Ashok> scribenick: nunolopes

Admin

PROPOSAL: Accept minutes of last meeting: http://www.w3.org/2012/02/14-RDB2RDF-minutes.html

<Ashok> PROPOSAL Approve minutes from Feb 28: http://www.w3.org/2012/02/28-RDB2RDF-minutes.html

RESOLUTION: Accepted minutes of last meeting: http://www.w3.org/2012/02/28-RDB2RDF-minutes.html

Adobe patent regarding DM

Ashok: Adobe said by email that they have no essential claims

http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdb2rdf-wg/2012Feb/0085.html

Ashok: The director was anxious regarding implementations

… lots of them demonstrate public uptake

… we agreed that we would have 4 implementations for each spec

… from which 2 would send formal implementation reports

<dmcneil> i think ashok said _4_ implementations for each spec

… can we have an idea on who would be doing these implementations?

… is D2R doing one?

<dmcneil> +q

<Ashok> Yes, 4 for each spec, 2 of them should submit formal implementation reports

<dmcneil> -q

cygri: we will be doing this but the timing might not fit with the WG timing

<juansequeda> +q

<dmcneil> +q

Ashok: ok, anybody else with a formal report for R2RML

juansequeda: UltraWrap are almost ready to have the report out

… for both specs

dmcneil: we are in a similar situation to what richard described

… we assume we'll do an implementation report but can't commit to timing

… probably second quarter 2012

<dmcneil> -q

boris: we can probably make the deadline

… after I finish the test cases I will look into this

… only for the R2RML spec

… before the end of next month

MacTed: We can try before the end of next month but cannot be sure

… for both specs

+q

<Zakim> ericP, you wanted to say i should have a reportable implementation in a week or so

ericP: I should have a DM implementation

… passing all the tests in about a week

… I'm patching locally all the tests and was planning to then submit the diffs

Ashok: are you going to do a formal report?

ericP: I intent to

Ashok: good news, as you make progress can you email the WG

<ericP> nunolopes: i have an implementation of both specs in XSPARQL

<ericP> ... i need to look at the current tests and send something in a week

juansequeda: can you explain the process of implementation report vs test-case report?

Ashok: what we require is one report, from 2 of the implementations at least

… a formal document stating that we passed the tests and which failed

<ericP> as i understand the WG concensus, that document should be the EARL format used by SPARQL

… and why failed

… 2 others would just require an email stating that the implementation passed the tests

juansequeda: we'd need the test harness code

<boris> http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/rdb2rdf/wiki/Submitting_Test_Results

Ashok: the report would be in EARL format

ericP: we follow the SPARQL WG on this

… everybody ran the tests and sends back turtle

… which implementation passes which tests

… looking up an example of EARL

juansequeda: the EARL report is part of the complete implementation report from the WG?

ericP: yes
... for the implementation report we can go through the tests and determine which features are implemented

… for SPARQL we had a more formal requirements

… for us it's sufficient to have the feature names?

… assign URLs to each feature boris identified

test cases

cygri: I have some comments

… a lot of the test cases use R2RML in a way that is not the shortest

… like using the rr:constant construct, instead of rr:predicte

… it's not wrong and works but would be better to show the more compact way

… to guide people to some best practices

… I would propose the TC use the shorter version

juansequeda: we should have a combination of both

… some should test the long form

<ericP> example EARL

cygri: yes, at least one use the long version

… another point is that when there is an integer column has associated the type specifically

… which is something we don't want

… R2RML should use the datatype mapping

… to get the most appropriate datatype

… again have TC should show that this can be changed but the others should not use the datatyype specification

… would be good to keep the TC as simple as possible

<ericP> +1 to minimizing complexity of test cases

<Ashok> +1 to minimizing complexity of test cases

… since it's easier to check what goes wrong in an implementation

<ericP> minimized complexity will help the implementation report in the same way it helps fmplementors debug

juansequeda: I ran all the test cases and so far they worked nicely

… they are incremental in the way the schema is generated and features are introduced

… on the contrary I would expect more complicated test cases

… with combinations of advanced features

<Zakim> juansequeda, you wanted to ask about the formal report

boris: so far no one else has ran the test cases

… in the end we should include more complicated

… but I agree with richard

ericP: from an implementation report point of view it's easier to have simple test cases

… opposed to more complicated ones

… the problem with the complex ones is that we can't tell which features are not implemented

scribe: but if we can do it based on earlier tests that's ok

Ashok: the test cases on other WG have been very minimal

juansequeda: in TC 8C, with multiple predicate maps,

<boris> http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/rdb2rdf/test-cases/#R2RMLTC0008c

… if we combine with multiple object maps the result will be a combination of all?

cygri: yes

juansequeda: that's ok from the implementation side but it's strange

cygri: we had a discussion on this

Souri: this TC has 2 predicatempas and one object map but does not have the other case

… you say that N predicate maps and M object maps are weird

juansequeda: yes

Souri: that generates the cartesean product

… it is not specifically stated but is allowed

juansequeda: in TC 19a, it has a subject map

… if the data has IRIs then its fine

<boris> http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/rdb2rdf/test-cases/#R2RMLTC0019a

… but if it's a mix we have a data error

cygri: referring to section 7.4 of the R2RML spec

<boris> http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/rdb2rdf/r2rml/#termtype

… but you're right that this should not produce anything due to the space in the 3rd row

… because if a query has any data error you will not get a partial result

<boris> http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/rdb2rdf/test-cases/#R2RMLTC0019a is ok

<boris> http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/rdb2rdf/test-cases/#R2RMLTC0019b has data-error

… as david pointed out, data should not be silently dropped

juansequeda: ok, without the 3rd row it would be fine?

cygri: I don't think so

… there is a base declaration used as base IRI

… and is also being used in this TC to get the absolute IRI when you have relative IRIs in the data

… to be precise every test case should have 2 inputs

… database and base IRI

<Souri> Should we change "Jhon" to "John" ?

juansequeda: in the DM graph n.6 the input would need to be changed (?)

discussion on relative vs absolute IRIs

ivan: ntriples doesn't allow relative IRIs

… since we can't have @ prefixes

cygri: yes, this is not allowed syntactically

… we can just call them turtle and that would work

… I would prefer that R2RML would have absolute IRI as output

… I don't have an opinion for the DM

Souri: do we do percent encoding in … ?

cygri: for templates yes

… for a column we don't , giving users the choice of doing so using a view

… the user is responsible for producing valid iris

Souri: if we have an rr:template what is the role of the base?

<Souri> ../{FIRSTNAME}

cygri: even with the base you can have a relative IRI

… it's simply a concatenation with the base IRI

<cygri> rr:template "{\"Name\"}";

<Souri> rr:template "{FIRSTNAME}"

Souri: in a simple template can we use base and percent encoding?

cygri: checking the spec

juansequeda: if that is the case TC 19a would not be wrong

… since the space would be %20

cygri: no, it uses rr:column

Ashok: can we continue by email?

<Souri> first row: http://example.com/ns#Jhon -> would that be right?

<boris> very good question souri

<juansequeda> Souri, but then you have to check every single value if it's a valid IRI

boris: for R2RML I have to input the base IRI

cygri: most of the cases it does not matter

<boris> +1 to say in the begining

… we can just add a line in the beginning of the document

… for the ones where it si needed it should not be taken from the mapping file

Ashok: should we have a telco next week?

<ericP> http://people.apache.org/~andy/ARQ-earl-2012-02-02.ttl

<Souri> 3rd row: http://mappingpedia.org/rdb2rdf/r2rml/tc/Juan%20Daniel -> right?

ericP: an example of an earl report

Ashok: ok, let's have a telco next week and we can cancel if needed

RRSAgent: draft minutes

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/have 2/have 4/
Succeeded: s/IRIR/IRI/
Found ScribeNick: nunolopes
Inferring Scribes: nunolopes
Present: Ted Ashok Richard Nuno David Boris Seema Eric Juan Souri Ivan
Regrets: Michael
Found Date: 06 Mar 2012
Guessing minutes URL: http://www.w3.org/2012/03/06-RDB2RDF-minutes.html
People with action items: 

WARNING: Input appears to use implicit continuation lines.
You may need the "-implicitContinuations" option.