RDB2RDF Working Group Teleconference -- 07 Dec 2010

<trackbot> Date: 07 December 2010

<mhausenblas> Michael: Richard and I are also a bit under pressure today (upcoming deadline) so I'd suggest a rather short call

<mhausenblas> ... given the number of regrets

heh

you will have to help me with the names

<mhausenblas> sure thing, but you know the thing with the 'deep end of the pool' ;)

scribing on a short call is of course a good idea:-)

<mhausenblas> excatly

<mhausenblas> scribenick: ivan

<boris> thanks

<mhausenblas> betehess are you going to join?

admin issues

<mhausenblas> PROPOSAL: Accept the minutes of last meeting, see http://www.w3.org/2010/11/30-rdb2rdf-minutes.html

mhausenblas: any comments
...
...

<nunolopes> +1

mhausenblas: propose to accept it

actions

<mhausenblas> http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/rdb2rdf/track/actions/open

mhausenblas: action 79 is on juan, skip that

<mhausenblas> ACTION-83?

<trackbot> ACTION-83 -- Ashok Malhotra to review R2RML ED -- due 2010-12-07 -- OPEN

<trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/rdb2rdf/track/actions/83

mhausenblas: Souri do you know of any input on that one?

Souri: no, sorry...

r2rml status

mhausenblas: we have a first public draft for r2rml
... our editors created a new editors' draft
... with lots of improvements

<mhausenblas> http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/rdb2rdf/r2rml/

mhausenblas: ashok had an action to review it
... would be good to be reviewed by somebody who has not been involved
... looking at ivan

ivan: I cannot review it before my vacation

mhausenblas: it would be good to issue another draft

ivan: I can review it in January

<mhausenblas> ACTION: Ivan to review the R2RML ED till end of 01/2011 [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2010/12/07-rdb2rdf-minutes.html#action01]

<trackbot> Sorry, amibiguous username (more than one match) - Ivan

<trackbot> Try using a different identifier, such as family name or username (eg. ivan, imikhail)

<mhausenblas> ACTION: Herman to review the R2RML ED till end of 01/2011 [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2010/12/07-rdb2rdf-minutes.html#action02]

<trackbot> Created ACTION-86 - Review the R2RML ED till end of 01/2011 [on Ivan Herman - due 2010-12-14].

<mhausenblas> ACTION-84?

<trackbot> ACTION-84 -- Michael Hausenblas to ask Lee if he can review R2RML ED -- due 2010-12-07 -- OPEN

<trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/rdb2rdf/track/actions/84

mhausenblas: Souri , Seema , anyting to add to the status

<mhausenblas> continues

Souri: we wrote 5-6 lines on the usage of blank nodes
... when triples are gtenerated from the same row
... i have some validation issues with that one, but will be there shortly

<Souri> 5.1 Use of Blank Nodes as Subject Although R2RML allows creating blank nodes as subject, one must use caution to avoid the following scenario. If triples generated from a logical table row are directed to different graphs (using rr:graph or rr:graphTemplate), then two triples from same row, despite the use of the same blank node label, would not be interpreted as describing the same subject. This is due to local (i.e., the containi

Souri: other than that we have not made any changes
... we thought for a moment on another issue, ie, use of the same uri-s across many tables, common in a join situation
... two tables have the same primary keys
... something to be discussed among ourselves

ivan: what about adding a portion on a relationship between direct graph and r2rml

Souri: I depend on richard on that, he is more about that section, if he does not have the time we can do it

<mhausenblas> ACTION: Hausenblas to nudge Richard C to address the R2RML - DM connection [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2010/12/07-rdb2rdf-minutes.html#action03]

<trackbot> Created ACTION-87 - Nudge Richard C to address the R2RML - DM connection [on Michael Hausenblas - due 2010-12-14].

mhausenblas: anything else?

Souri: one issue I have for the direct mapping
... dm uses blank node as a default when there is no primary key
... there is not option to do anything else
... the complication does not come it in their case
... but blank nodes have their issues
... of course, with uri-s if two people use the same, that can be generate
... uri-s seem more simple to deal with

<mhausenblas> Michael: please go to http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/rdb2rdf/track/issues/ and raise an issue (+ tag it with product 'Direct Mapping')

Souri: should we take this into account

mhausenblas: better to put that into the issue tracker and then we will have to discuss it with the DM editors when they are here

<mhausenblas> ISSUE-5?

<trackbot> ISSUE-5 -- Default vs. direct mapping -- open

<trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/rdb2rdf/track/issues/5

test cases

mhausenblas: we have a lot, but it is not good to look at them with so many people are not here?
... boris is it ok with you?

boris: sure, next time is fine

<boris> http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/rdb2rdf/wiki/R2RML_Test_Cases_v1

boris: I have created a new wiki page, based on the comments of last week

AOB

mhausenblas: anything? F2F meeting

<mhausenblas> Michael: http://www.w3.org/2010/11/16-rdb2rdf-minutes.html#item02

<mhausenblas> ACTION-79?

<trackbot> ACTION-79 -- Juan Sequeda to compile a list of speaking/panel opportunities for diseminating rdb2rdf work -- due 2010-12-07 -- OPEN

<trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/rdb2rdf/track/actions/79

Souri: for semtech, 1.5 hours will be fine
... we will not have formal semantics there
... with good examples this would be enough

mhausenblas: let us discuss this via mail
... when juan is here
... anything else?
...
...
... we will have one more call next week
... we can restart on the 4th or the 11th

meeting adjurned

bye

<mhausenblas> trackbot, end telecon

- DRAFT -

RDB2RDF Working Group Teleconference

07 Dec 2010

Attendees

Contents

admin issues

actions

r2rml status

test cases

AOB

Summary of Action Items

Scribe.perl diagnostic output