See also: IRC log
<trackbot> Date: 07 September 2010
<MacTed> hrm.
<MacTed> broken bot.
<MacTed> bah
<cygri> hm, we can try this:
<cygri> nunolopes, who's here?
<cygri> nunolopes, i'm with mhausenblas
<Ashok> s/om/on/
<mhausenblas> seems we're having issues with Zakim
<nunolopes> cygri: this bot is even more broken then the other
<ericP> aha!
<mhausenblas> ericP is very welcome
<mhausenblas> scribenick: juansequeda
<mhausenblas> PROPOSAL: Accept the minutes of last meeting, see
<mhausenblas> http://www.w3.org/2010/08/31-rdb2rdf-minutes.html
<cygri> the ambulance is for zakim
+1 for minutes
RESOLUTION: WG has accepted the minutes of past meeting
mhausenblas: there has been
discussion on this in the last few hours
... will send the agenda earlier because this triggers
discussion
juan: suggest to move on to topic 3 (syntax) and then go back to default mapping later
<mhausenblas> http://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/43889/RDB2RDF-syntax/results
mhausenblas: comments on the
syntax?
... questions?
cygri: so far, the answers are
from the people who are deeply involved in the discussion
... it would be interesting to get popular vote from the people
who haven't thought about these issues
... how to do this?
... would it make sense to make this a public poll?
mhausenblas: I was expecting
feedback from the group on this
... probably people involved in RDB2RDF are better informed to
make this decision
... but opening to the public is an option
ericP: I think that is a good idea. interested to see what consumers would like to type
mhausenblas: should we have a separate poll? or open this one to the public
ericP: need to get
permission
... from everybody who has already submitted
<ericP> +1
<Ashok> By "public" do you mean W3C members or man-in-the-street?
cygri: I will volunteer to make the custom syntax example can be the same as the others
mhausenblas: wrt Ashok's question... it is open to either
<Souri> Seema and I have added a new (revision 2) page for XML-schema based example: http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/rdb2rdf/wiki/Example_of_SQL-based_RDB2RDF_Mapping:_Revision_2
Souri: in the DB community, I don't know how much is connected to this group. The feedback that we will get from the community is mostly going to be from the RDF side
mhausenblas: this is the opportunity to do PR. We can approach people from Semtech
Souri: the DB people may not care
about RDF
... the db people are not enthusiastic in RDF, but will be
players.
... the feedback will come from RDF people
cygri: the people who want to do
this are the RDF people and we hope that the DB people will
come later
... if we believe something is better for DB people, then it is
just speculation
... it is reasonable to design for people that we know who will
use it
Souri: I agree that we need to
have a RDF syntax.
... we should be open to the XML syntax
... with an open poll, we will probably get feedback about RDF
and not about XML
cygri: from the poll, we can see
that the RDF syntax should be done
... I don't think anybody will object for the RDF syntax
... some people say that the custom and xml is not a good
idea
... We could start with the RDF syntax for the FWPD
... expressing the same thing in another syntax is not a huge
problem when we already have nailed down what we want in the
first syntax
Souri: yes, let's make an equivalent XML syntax on the way
<Zakim> ericP, you wanted to say that we can ask for explicit feedback in FPWD
mhausenblas: it seems that we have a new proposal of going forth with the RDF syntax with a synchronized XML syntax
ericP: if we show in the doc both syntaxes, we can have the question in the doc if people like this
<mhausenblas> PROPOSAL: use RDF/Turtle in FPWD + keep XML syntax in sync and ask for feedback in FPWD
<ericP> second
<cygri> +1
mhausenblas, everybody agrees?
+1
RESOLUTION: WG has decided to use RDF/Turtle in FPWD + keep XML syntax in sync and ask for feedback in FPWD
Souri: for the RDF syntax, we
need to work hard so it can stay simple and it corresponds to
each of the things in XML
... there should be a 1:1 correspondence
cygri: in the RDF draft, I took
the XML example and tried to write it in RDF. There are a few
things that I didn't know how to write them
... so I know there are some things that don't match
... we need to start writing them down, and see what them mean
and how they work
Souri: if I can look at the RDF, how can I translate it to XML and vice-versa
<mhausenblas> http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/rdb2rdf/r2rml/
mhausenblas: I would suggest to
work directly on the document and not on the wiki
... who volunteers to edit this?
... we need people in the next 2 weeks to start writing this
editor draft
<Souri> I don't mind editing with Richard (and if Seema agrees)
cygri: I can
<Seema> I can help out too
<talking logistics of cvs >
<mhausenblas> Michael: editors of the FPWD are Souri, Seema and Richard
mhausenblas: what is the title of that document?
<Souri> Language for Mapping Relational Data to RDF ?
Relational Database to RDF Mapping Language
<mhausenblas> PROPOSAL: R2RML - Relational Database to RDF Mapping Language
+1
<discussion about title>
cygri: is R2RML the fixed name? or can it be changed?
mhausenblas: yes it can be changed
ericP: ML usually means Markup Language
<ericP> PROPOSAL: Relational Database to RDF Mapping Language
ericP: don't give a name for the language... yet
mhausenblas: but we used R2RML for the Use case doc
ericP: so are we committed?
<mhausenblas> +1 ericP's proposal
macted: we need to have a place holder
mhausenblas: It doesn't need to be in the title, but we can still use R2RML as a placeholder
ericP: if it is not used in the title, then we can change the name of the language later
<MacTed> +1 title change
RESOLUTION: WG decided that the FPWD will have the title "Relational Database to RDF Mapping Language"
mhausenblas: how will the editors plan to incorporate the semantics
<mhausenblas> PROPOSAL: having the semantics as a separate document
juansequeda: recommend to have different document for the direct mapping and semantics
cygri, didn't catch what you said
cygri: in two weeks we can have something worth discussing
<cygri> juansequeda: i suggested to first create a skeleton of the document addressing the syntax, and when that is done discuss about how to fit the semantics in (same or separate doc)
<mhausenblas> Michael: Ashok are you available for chairing next week?
cygri, thanks and +1
<Souri> I agree, 2 weeks is more realistic (we'll be out Sep 19-23, and at risk for sep 22)
<cygri> there's a language "R2R" already in the RDF world: http://www4.wiwiss.fu-berlin.de/bizer/r2r/
<Ashok> Yes, I should be able to chair next week
<mhausenblas> great, thanks!
ericP: could we get the direct mapping doc out quickly, because it has been 3 months since our last publication
<mhausenblas> focusing on direct mapping next week, ok?
mhausenblas: let's discuss the direct mapping next week
Souri: I won't be in 2
weeks
... it's fine if Richard presents
mhausenblas: good meeting. next
week Ashok will chair and we will talk about the direct
mapping
... sooner or later we should have a f2f meeting
<Ashok> I suggest after we have a FPWD
mhausenblas: it might make sense that once we have the first draft, we can have a f2f so we can keep editing
<mhausenblas> [adjourned]