<trackbot> Date: 25 May 2010

<mhausenblas> well, if that's the only way to do it, yes

<mhausenblas> but, the problem was that I put <scope> somewhere in the logs which made the XSLT go crazy

<mhausenblas> hence I had to remove it

<mhausenblas> I don't want to risk to have a screwed version now online

<mhausenblas> juansequeda, re your two comments:

<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

<mhausenblas> I don't want to open can of worms, again

<mhausenblas> talking about certain words or whatever

<mhausenblas> re " 4.1.2. It use to be TRANSFORM a" - that was me

<mhausenblas> if you think TRANSFORM is better, then fine with me, can change it back (will take a note now)

<mhausenblas> juansequeda, ok?

<juansequeda> about the first comment, I understand it as RDF ontology in RDFS ... is this correct?

<mhausenblas> juansequeda yes - I directly applied edits as proposed by ... lemme look up

<mhausenblas> ouch - that was actually your proposal, juansequeda

<mhausenblas> see http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdb2rdf-wg/2010May/0084.html

<mhausenblas> "Accompanying each table are two RDF views (represented in Turtle) corresponding to the HL7/RIM and CDISK SDFTM ontology in RDFS."

<juansequeda> mhausenblas, we need to drop "RDF" before "HL7/RIM"

<mhausenblas> juansequeda? are you now redoing your comments?

<mhausenblas> I'm totally confused

<mhausenblas> scribenick: hhalpin

<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.

<mhausenblas> ah, ok, juansequeda - in that case it's a simple typo ;)

<mhausenblas> will fix, yes

<juansequeda> mhausenblas, yup! btw, im on the call but muted

<mhausenblas> scribenick: mhausenblas

Admin

PROPOSAL: accept minutes from last meeting http://www.w3.org/2010/05/18-rdb2rdf-minutes.html

<Souri> ahmed, I am here

<hhalpin> +1

<alexander> +1

RESOLUTION: WG has accepted the minutes from last meeting http://www.w3.org/2010/05/18-rdb2rdf-minutes.html

<scribe> scribenick: hhalpin

Ahmed: What's more important to get document out soon or to get a reasonably good document?

Ashok: the document is much better now

<LeeF> I think it's more important to get document out soon.

Ashok: other than a few questions
... I think we can publish it.

<mhausenblas> ACTION-55?

<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

<trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/rdb2rdf/track/actions/55

Face-to-face meeting

mhausenblas: 20th of June seems acceptable
... I don't see any counter-proposals?

<Souri> what would be the duration?

<LeeF> Regrets for the 20th of June, I will not be able to make it

Notes that either me or EricP will be there, but not necessarily both.

<mhausenblas> close ACTION-55

<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

<mhausenblas> ACTION 56?

<trackbot> Sorry, bad ACTION syntax

<mhausenblas> ACTION-56?

<trackbot> ACTION-56 -- Michael Hausenblas to create a wikipage for face-to-face -- due 2010-05-25 -- OPEN

<trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/rdb2rdf/track/actions/56

Comments on Use-case document

Ashok: There were many comments, but Michael seems to have addressed most of them, so I'm happy with document.
... with two of the use-cases we have to speak of which what requirements come from the use-case?
... this is still to do.
... I also felt some things could be taken out
... but there isn't agreement on that.

<Seema> yes.. i can barely hear the speakers

Ashok: but think we can publish regardless

Ahmed: Which parts to take out?

Ashok: I wanted to remove Section 1 there is the scope and why is a standard needed.
... I argue that this should be removed because that is stuff we spoke about in charter
... and this is a requirement document.
... so it doesn't require it.
... the other thing, which is more controversial

<boris> it's muted

Ashok: I would take out the section on Approaches.
... I don't think that adds anything.

<Souri> but I think Ashok was pointing about 1.3 (scope)

<LeeF> Why do we need to convince them? Wasn't sufficient convincing accomplished when the W3C membership approved our charter?

<mhausenblas> http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/rdb2rdf/use-cases/

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.
... 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.

<mhausenblas> http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/rdb2rdf/wiki/Use_Cases_and_Requirements/Reviews#Open_Issues

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.
... about why this standard was important.

<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

<LeeF> note that i'm happy to keep it too, i don't feel strongly :)

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

<LeeF> hhalpin, ack

Ashok: I would take out 1.3, happy to keep 1.1 and 1.2

<juansequeda> What is the argument to drop the glossary?

Ahmed: I also have comments on Section 1.3

PROPOSAL: To remove 1.1 and 1.2

<mhausenblas> Michael: that;s not a good idea, should stay in there

<Seema> since the sections are already done, i don't see the harm in keeping them

<Ashok> Juan, the glossary was incomplete. It's a lot better now

hhalpin: I would prefer to keep them, but happy to move glossary to end, where it makes more sense.

<mhausenblas> PROPOSAL: KEep section 1.1 and 1.2

+1

<alexander> +1

<Seema> +1

<boris> +1

<nunolopes> +1

<Souri> I agree with Ashok that UC&R is not the most appropriate place for these sections, but I am okay with keeping it

<Marcelo> +1

Ashok: OK, am ok with keeping these sections.

RESOLUTION: To keep Section 1.1 and 1.2

<mhausenblas> sec. 1.3 Glossary clarification

<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

<mhausenblas> PROPOSAL: Keep sec 1.3 for now

PROPOSAL: Section 1.3 (Glossary) should be kept.

<cygri> +1

<Souri> +1

hhalpin: I think it should be kept but moved to end, where glossaries normally are found :)

<boris> +1

<alexander> +1

<juansequeda> +1

+1

<Souri> I agree with harry

<mhausenblas> sec. 2 Use Cases: Ashok suggests to change this completely into two different classifications

<juansequeda> +1 to harry's comment

mhausenblas: perhaps move it to the end?

<Seema> +1 to Harry

<mhausenblas> see http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/rdb2rdf/wiki/Ashok%27s_UCR_Review

Ashok: What I wanted is a different and separate point
... wanted to differentiate the use-cases more
... there are too many things going on in some of the use-cases

mhausenblas: I see your point, but not sure what to do, happy with way it is currently
... I don't care, it's a style
... in order to give people an idea of terms before using them

PROPOSAL: Move glossary to end?

+1

<cygri> -1

<mhausenblas> -1

<alexander> +1

<juansequeda> +1

<boris> +1

<Seema> +1

<Marcelo> +1

<Souri> +1

RESOLUTION: Keep glossary, move to end.

mhausenblas: It would require a large amount of editorial work, but maybe we can do it after getting out first public working draft

Ashok: We are open to editing it?

mhausenblas: we are open to editing it.

hhalpin: notes we should have quite a few months to edit it before final publication

PROPOSAL: Keep Section 2 as is, but keep working on it before final version

<mhausenblas> +1

+1

<juansequeda> +1

<boris> +1

<mhausenblas> http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/rdb2rdf/use-cases/#WP-req

RESOLUTION: Keep Section 2 as is, but keep working on it before final version released

PROPOSAL: Section 2.2

<mhausenblas> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdb2rdf-wg/2010May/0083.html

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

<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.

<juansequeda> If i

<juansequeda> If I understand correctly, triplify is not about ETL

<mhausenblas> ADD at the end: This usecase leads to the following requirements

<mhausenblas> * Map Relational data to an RDF schema derived from the Relational Schema

<mhausenblas> * Extract-Transform-Load the RDF created by the mapping .

Ashok: Juan is possibly correct, but that was my interpreation upon my first look at it

<juansequeda> Shouldn't all use-cases allow ETL ?

Ashok: Juan, you're positive about this?

<juansequeda> i didnt understand the question

juan - are you SURE you are correct?

Ahmed: I am not in favour of allowing all use-cases leading to ETL

+1 Ahmed

<juansequeda> About my understanding of the wordpress UC with triplify? I am not sure. This is my understanding. Soeren is the person to ask

<Ashok> +1 to Ahmed

<mhausenblas> http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/rdb2rdf/use-cases/#WP-req

mhausenblas: Which requirement goes with use-case number 2

<juansequeda> No, if i understand, triplify doesnt allow query

<juansequeda> actually, thinking about this.. I'm fine if the ETL is the req for the UC

<juansequeda> what does everybody else think?

I'm happy either way

<juansequeda> it's a working draft... so it's ok :)

<Ashok> How about ETL?

mhausenblas: no objections, so let's include that requirement

<mhausenblas> PROPOSAL: add 'Extract-Transform-Load the RDF created by the mapping .' to UC2 reqs

+1

Ashok: Do we have a requirement like that?

mhausenblas: No.

Ahmed: We should have support for both on demand and ETL.

mhausenblas: no objections, so we'll add that.

<mhausenblas> ACTION: mhausenblas to update UC2 reqs re ETL [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2010/05/25-rdb2rdf-minutes.html#action01]

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

<mhausenblas> ACTION: mhausenb to update UC2 reqs re ETL [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2010/05/25-rdb2rdf-minutes.html#action02]

<trackbot> Created ACTION-57 - Update UC2 reqs re ETL [on Michael Hausenblas - due 2010-06-01].

<mhausenblas> UC4 reqs

<mhausenblas> http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/rdb2rdf/use-cases/#rCAD-req

Ashok: I'd like to ask Juan, what requirements can we get out of use-case 4?

<juansequeda> for UC4 mapping to domain ontology

Ashok: given that it's your use-case

<juansequeda> direct mapping,

<juansequeda> For the first part, we need direct mapping, for the second part we need transform mapping

<juansequeda> exactly!

<juansequeda> sounds good!

<juansequeda> im on the call but muted

<mhausenblas> PROPOSAL: Use reqs from section 4 to update UC4

<alexander> +1

+1

<boris> +1

<juansequeda> +1

RESOLUTION: Use reqs from Section 4 to update UC4

<mhausenblas> ACTION: mhausenb to update UC4 reqs with section 4 input [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2010/05/25-rdb2rdf-minutes.html#action03]

<trackbot> Created ACTION-58 - Update UC4 reqs with section 4 input [on Michael Hausenblas - due 2010-06-01].

<mhausenblas> Why remove sec. 3?

<mhausenblas> Ashok: I don’t think this section adds anything to the document. I recommend we remove it

<Souri> I had a comment on the OWL-DL excerpt used in the rCAD example: what benefit does the excerpt serve to the reader?

<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.

<Souri> sure

hhalpin: I'm OK either way

<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.

mhausenblas: Not sure what the proposal is here, "What does reader get out of.."

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
... why not just put the whole example, and then a link off to it
... so they can see the whole thing, the excerpt there seems not very useful
... my proposal is to be a link to it, not a full excerpt

PROPOSAL: To put a link to the excerpt in the OBO example, not a full excerpt

mhausenblas: any thoughts?

<Souri> "full excerpt" -> "excerpt"

juan: I'm fine with a link to the ontology
... just trying to give an example to domain ontology, I'm happy with a link to the domain ontology

mhausenblas: Can you provide me with a link?

<juansequeda> ok, I'll email it to you. because the public link is the OBO ontology

mhausenblas: seems like a resolution to this.

<mhausenblas> "This is just part of the Multiple Alignment Ontology in OWL DL"

<mhausenblas> "This is just part of the <a href="">Multiple Alignment Ontology</a> in OWL DL"

<juansequeda> yup!

+1

<juansequeda> +1

<Souri> +1

<Ahmed> +

RESOLUTION: To put a link to the full excerpt in the OBO example, not an excerpt

<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 [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2010/05/25-rdb2rdf-minutes.html#action04]

<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].

<mhausenblas> q

mhausenblas: let's make sure you can be here

<mhausenblas> http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/rdb2rdf/wiki/Ahmed%27s_UCR_Review

Ahmed's comments are:

Ahmed: Has everyone read your comments?
... Approaches should be moved to appendix

I'm OK either way

<mhausenblas> PROPOSAL: Move 3 Approaches to Appendix

<juansequeda> +1

<Ashok> +1

+1

<alexander> +1

<Souri> +1

RESOLUTION: Section 3 should be moved to Appendix

<boris> +1

Ahmed: The motivations are covered in a somewhat scattered way throughout the text

mhausenblas: I have included both of your proposals in the new draft

Ahmed: For a draft, I'm OK.
... Why do people do automatic transformation rather than just use SQL?
... for analytics etc.

Ashok: the answer is that if you want to combine different sources of RDF then you can do it.

<Souri> Aside For Sec 3, I would suggest replacing the names of WG people with more generic names

Ahmed: I agree, again, the problem is that SQL failed at data integration, and this is where RDF

+1 Souri

Ahmed: I think if we can add it in motivation
... it would highlight the main problem.
... My main issues were with section 3

mhausenblas: my main comment was I'm not sure how to phrase all these as proposals.

Ahmed: Let's go over them one by one
... particularly the vocabulary
... sometimes I'm not sure about

+1 Ahmed

<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

<juansequeda> Can't we just finish this over email?

Ashok: Would it be OK if I spoke for you and we went through your comments?

hhalpin: Could we try to have another telecon earlier than next Tuesday?

Ashok: Friday afternoon?

1 PM on Friday is 10 PM.

<juansequeda> Why can

<juansequeda> Why can

<juansequeda> Why can't this be done by email?

<mhausenblas> Michael: we should postpone as Ahmed is not around and can't agree

<LeeF> juansequeda++

<LeeF> Why can't this be done via email?

<Souri> next Thursday means 03-Jun-2010? or 10-Jun-2010?

<mhausenblas> Michael: I would also prefer this, but Ahmed insist on going through all of his comments personally

<juansequeda> No answer to our question: why can't this be done over email?

<Ahmed> I said that I rather prefer prsenting my issues myself ...

<mhausenblas> Ahmed: however

Ashok: Both me and Ahmed wanted Database connection removed.

mhausenblas: ericP put that in there, but I think soeren wanted it.

Meeting adjourned.

trackbot, meeting adjourned

<trackbot> Sorry, hhalpin, I don't understand 'trackbot, meeting adjourned'. Please refer to http://www.w3.org/2005/06/tracker/irc for help

<LeeF> trackbot, end meeting

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/Not sure/No/
Found ScribeNick: hhalpin
WARNING: No scribe lines found matching ScribeNick pattern: <hhalpin> ...
Found ScribeNick: mhausenblas
Found ScribeNick: hhalpin
Inferring Scribes: hhalpin, mhausenblas
Scribes: hhalpin, mhausenblas
ScribeNicks: hhalpin, mhausenblas
Default Present: boris, mhausenblas, Marcelo, seema, Lee_Feigenbaum, nunolopes, Ashok_Malhotra, souri, whalb, cygri, [IPcaller], hhalpin, +1.512.471.aaaa
Present: boris mhausenblas Marcelo seema Lee_Feigenbaum nunolopes Ashok_Malhotra souri whalb cygri [IPcaller] hhalpin +1.512.471.aaaa
Regrets: Soeren
Agenda: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdb2rdf-wg/2010May/0100.html
Found Date: 25 May 2010
Guessing minutes URL: http://www.w3.org/2010/05/25-rdb2rdf-minutes.html
People with action items: mhausenb mhausenblas