16:00:57 <RRSAgent> RRSAgent has joined #rdb2rdf
16:00:57 <RRSAgent> logging to http://www.w3.org/2010/04/27-rdb2rdf-irc
16:00:59 <trackbot> RRSAgent, make logs world
16:00:59 <Zakim> Zakim has joined #rdb2rdf
16:01:00 <soeren> soeren has joined #RDB2RDF
16:01:01 <trackbot> Zakim, this will be 7322733
16:01:01 <Zakim> ok, trackbot; I see SW_RDB2RDF()12:00PM scheduled to start now
16:01:02 <trackbot> Meeting: RDB2RDF Working Group Teleconference
16:01:02 <trackbot> Date: 27 April 2010
16:01:08 <mhausenblas> Agenda: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdb2rdf-wg/2010Apr/0067.html
16:01:08 <souri> souri has joined #rdb2rdf
16:01:09 <MacTed> Zakim, who's here?
16:01:09 <Zakim> SW_RDB2RDF()12:00PM has not yet started, MacTed
16:01:11 <Zakim> On IRC I see souri, soeren, Zakim, RRSAgent, Seema, Ashok, juansequeda, Marcelo, whalb, hhalpin, MacTed, nunolopes, mhausenblas, iv_an_ru, trackbot, ericP
16:01:15 <MacTed> Zakim, this is 7322733
16:01:15 <Zakim> ok, MacTed; that matches SW_RDB2RDF()12:00PM
16:01:17 <mhausenblas> Chair: Ahmed
16:01:18 <MacTed> Zakim, who's here?
16:01:18 <Zakim> On the phone I see ??P3, Souri, OpenLink_Software, whalb
16:01:20 <Zakim> On IRC I see souri, soeren, Zakim, RRSAgent, Seema, Ashok, juansequeda, Marcelo, whalb, hhalpin, MacTed, nunolopes, mhausenblas, iv_an_ru, trackbot, ericP
16:01:28 <MacTed> Zakim, OpenLink_Software is temporarily me
16:01:28 <Zakim> +MacTed; got it
16:01:37 <Zakim> +Seema
16:01:59 <Zakim> +mhausenblas
16:02:00 <Zakim> +Ashok_Malhotra
16:02:14 <nunolopes> Zakim, nunolopes is with mhausenblas
16:02:14 <Zakim> +nunolopes; got it
16:02:16 <Zakim> +soeren
16:02:20 <Zakim> + +1.562.249.aaaa
16:02:59 <mhausenblas> scribenick: Marcelo 
16:03:09 <juansequeda> dialing in 1 min
16:03:20 <lma2> lma2 has joined #RDB2RDF
16:03:26 <mhausenblas> juansequeda++
16:03:35 <cygri> cygri has joined #rdb2rdf
16:03:55 <Marcelo> Topic: Admin
16:04:06 <mhausenblas> RRSAgent, draft minutes
16:04:06 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2010/04/27-rdb2rdf-minutes.html mhausenblas
16:04:23 <Marcelo> RRSAgent, draft minutes
16:04:23 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2010/04/27-rdb2rdf-minutes.html Marcelo
16:04:24 <Zakim> +[IPcaller]
16:04:30 <mhausenblas> RRSAgent, make logs public
16:05:12 <MacTed> Zakim, [IPcaller] is juansequeda
16:05:12 <Zakim> +juansequeda; got it
16:05:14 <Zakim> + +1.512.471.aabb
16:05:23 <cygri> cygri is with juansequeda
16:05:31 <cygri> zakim, cygri is with juansequeda
16:05:31 <Zakim> +cygri; got it
16:07:09 <Ahmed> Ahmed has joined #RDB2RDF
16:07:17 <Zakim> +??P28
16:07:17 <mhausenblas> PROPOSAL: accept minutes from http://www.w3.org/2010/04/20-rdb2rdf-minutes.html
16:07:22 <Seema> Seema has joined #rdb2rdf
16:07:35 <Marcelo> +1
16:08:13 <Marcelo> RESOLUTION: accept minutes from http://www.w3.org/2010/04/20-rdb2rdf-minutes.html
16:08:52 <Marcelo> Main topic for today: Use cases document
16:09:10 <Marcelo> Topic: Discussion about the use case document
16:09:28 <mhausenblas> http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/rdb2rdf/use-cases/
16:10:04 <Marcelo> Main changes from the previous version of the document:
16:10:11 <Marcelo> requirements have been updated
16:10:28 <souri> zakim, who is on the phone?
16:10:28 <Zakim> On the phone I see ??P3, Souri, MacTed, whalb, Seema, mhausenblas, Ashok_Malhotra, soeren, +1.562.249.aaaa, juansequeda, +1.512.471.aabb, ??P28
16:10:30 <Zakim> juansequeda has juansequeda, cygri
16:10:32 <Zakim> mhausenblas has mhausenblas, nunolopes
16:10:35 <Marcelo> goal for today: agree on the docuement
16:10:36 <soeren> +q
16:10:42 <mhausenblas> ack soeren 
16:14:04 <souri> Mapping and Transforming are two different goals. RDB2RDF charter does not include "Transforming".
16:14:07 <Zakim> - +1.562.249.aaaa
16:14:13 <mhausenblas> Marcelo?
16:14:33 <Marcelo> Sorry, I lost the phone connection
16:14:42 <mhausenblas> oh
16:14:46 <souri> Transforming should be done as a separate task, not under RDB2RDF.
16:14:56 <mhausenblas> scribenick: nunolopes 
16:15:25 <Zakim> + +1.562.249.aacc
16:15:38 <Marcelo> I am back ...
16:15:51 <Marcelo> yes
16:16:05 <mhausenblas> scribenick: Marcelo 
16:16:19 <cygri> q+
16:16:25 <souri> Mapping from RDB schema to a (generated) RDF schema is what we have to handle. Mapping the generated RDF schema to another (existing) ontology is an ontology-mapping problem (e.g., PROMPT).
16:16:46 <Zakim> - +1.562.249.aacc
16:17:01 <mhausenblas> ack cygri 
16:17:12 <mhausenblas> scribenick: nunolopes 
16:17:14 <Marcelo> sorry, I lost the connection again, I don't know what is going on :-( 
16:17:29 <souri> q+
16:17:49 <nunolopes> cygri: the interesting cases are maping the RDB to RDF
16:18:09 <nunolopes> … about the putative ontology, i'm not sure what the job of this group would be
16:18:24 <mhausenblas> Michael: noting that we lost some of the earlier statements due to scribe difficulties
16:18:42 <mhausenblas> Michael: I encourage people (soeren, etc.) to repeat their statements on IRC
16:18:46 <nunolopes> … if we do a mechanical transformation from one format to the other what is the job of this group?
16:19:51 <nunolopes> … is there any need for this group to address the issue/usecase of the putative ontology?
16:20:01 <souri> step-1) RDB -> (generated) ontology, and  step-2) (generated) ontology to a second ontology
16:20:14 <nunolopes> MacTed: the desired end result is not to map to a putative ontology
16:20:44 <souri> step-2 is a different problem that people have already attempted (e.g., PROMPT) and should be considered as a separate task
16:21:45 <Zakim> -soeren
16:22:15 <nunolopes> Ahmed: I question the value of mapping the RDB schema to an ontology 
16:22:17 <Zakim> +soeren
16:22:17 <mas> mas has joined #rdb2rdf
16:22:26 <souri> if we want to include step-2 (i.e., ontology-to-ontology mapping) in our roadmap then we need to include that in the RDB2RDF charter
16:23:27 <souri> q?
16:23:30 <Zakim> + +1.562.249.aadd
16:24:02 <Marcelo> Marcelo has joined #rdb2rdf
16:24:02 <souri> people, please respect the queue
16:24:23 <nunolopes> MacTed: I feel that the mapping should be general
16:24:35 <mhausenblas> ack souri 
16:24:55 <nunolopes> souri: I agree with MacTed 
16:25:13 <nunolopes> … One problem is translating a view of the RDBMS to an ontology
16:25:34 <nunolopes> … and another step is to translate the ontology to another ontology
16:25:54 <nunolopes> … this is a lot of work and non trivial, and probably not in the charter
16:25:56 <souri> ack souri
16:26:06 <cygri> q+
16:26:31 <souri> q+
16:26:49 <MacTed> q+
16:27:08 <nunolopes> Ahmed: I don't see a group to translate the schema to a "local ontology" 
16:27:21 <mhausenblas> q- MacTed 
16:29:05 <mhausenblas> ack cygri
16:29:08 <Zakim> - +1.562.249.aadd
16:29:41 <nunolopes> cygri: if I understand, you want a separation where first is an automatic transformation from RDB to RDF
16:29:58 <Zakim> + +1.562.249.aaee
16:30:06 <nunolopes> … and the second step (from a ontology to another) is outside the scope of the group?
16:30:08 <juansequeda> q+
16:30:15 <nunolopes> … this is a valid approach
16:30:34 <nunolopes> … but we have number of mapping languages that do these things in one step
16:30:48 <nunolopes> … and the advantage is that you can specify the mapping as SQL queries
16:31:08 <nunolopes> … which would not be doable in the separated approach
16:31:18 <mhausenblas> q?
16:31:32 <nunolopes> having a combined mapping language, allows to use the expressivity of SQL
16:31:41 <mhausenblas> q+ to remind people on the goal: get out the UC document. today.
16:31:48 <nunolopes> s/having/... having/
16:32:00 <souri> step-1 includes writing SQL queries to influence the RDF schema that will be generated
16:32:05 <mhausenblas> ack souri 
16:32:39 <nunolopes> souri: the 1st step (schema to general ontology) you want to use SQL
16:32:59 <nunolopes> … the mapping is influenced by the SQL you are writting
16:33:03 <MacTed> +1
16:33:40 <mhausenblas> q?
16:34:10 <nunolopes> … those queries are then used to create the RDF schema
16:34:33 <nunolopes> cygri: we should map databased to a given RDF schema
16:34:48 <nunolopes> MacTed: which is ontology to ontology mapping 
16:34:55 <nunolopes> cygri: I don't think so
16:35:37 <nunolopes> souri: what you mean by ontology, is that it consists of the database tables and for that I write a view
16:35:56 <nunolopes> … the view is then translated automatically to the ontology
16:36:25 <nunolopes> … we shouldn't care about the specific tables but more on the actual view
16:36:31 <Dan> Dan has joined #RDB2RDF
16:36:43 <nunolopes> … the mapping relies on looking at tables from the DB
16:36:57 <nunolopes> … this should be our goal
16:37:29 <nunolopes> Ahmed: if it is impossible to map to a domain ontology, your DB is not intersection with your application
16:37:41 <nunolopes> … otherwise we cannot have any mapping
16:37:42 <mhausenblas> ack juansequeda
16:37:44 <souri> q?
16:38:27 <nunolopes> Dan: ontology mapping is an open issue: what happens when we create software to do it automatically
16:38:42 <nunolopes> …. it's not an open issue if you provide the mapping
16:38:55 <souri> ontology-to-ontology mapping is a schema-mapping problem which is nontrivial
16:39:16 <nunolopes> … the charter of the group is to create a mapping language, a syntax that says what is a mapping
16:39:39 <nunolopes> … object X in a database goes to Y in the ontology
16:40:21 <mhausenblas> q?
16:40:48 <nunolopes> … by reading the charter I don't think that there is a lot of dispute
16:41:06 <nunolopes> mhausenblas: I'm a bit lost. we planned for today to review the use case document
16:41:20 <nunolopes> … we're falling back to the question of what we should do
16:41:27 <Dan> q+
16:41:28 <Ahmed> +Ahmed
16:41:43 <Ahmed> Q+
16:41:48 <nunolopes> … we either postpone the question or make available what is currently online
16:41:50 <mhausenblas> ack me
16:41:50 <Zakim> mhausenblas, you wanted to remind people on the goal: get out the UC document. today.
16:41:52 <mhausenblas> q?
16:42:04 <mhausenblas> ack Dan 
16:42:15 <mhausenblas> ack Ahmed 
16:42:37 <souri> This is how I see it: A human sees the target ontology, the human sees the DB schema, and the human then figures out in his/her head what the SQL queries (if we use SQL-based approach) should be and writes those queries in SQL. The mapping specification includes the list of SQL queries and the desired RDF class names and properties.
16:42:39 <MacTed> q+
16:42:47 <nunolopes> Ahmed: I would not provide a document while people are still discussing what the group should do
16:42:50 <mhausenblas> q?
16:43:06 <nunolopes> … I don't see the mapping as mapping to a local ontology but for a domain ontology
16:43:25 <souri> q+
16:43:29 <mhausenblas> ack MacTed
16:43:48 <mhausenblas> strawman poll on the following topics:
16:43:48 <Dan> q+
16:43:55 <nunolopes> MacTed: does RDF require a domain ontology ?
16:44:15 <nunolopes> … or does the use of a putative ontology deliver RDF?
16:44:40 <souri> I'd like to have a comment first to explain the context around the question that will be put up for straw-poll
16:44:54 <mhausenblas> q?
16:45:22 <nunolopes> … we should opt for the generic solution
16:45:53 <juansequeda> q+ to ask what if somebody wants to map to FOAF or SIOC or GoodRelations... etc
16:46:14 <mhausenblas> ack souri 
16:46:55 <nunolopes> souri: we are figuring out if we are using SQL what will map to the RDF
16:46:58 <hhalpin> hhalpin has joined #rdb2rdf
16:47:02 <cygri> mhausenblas: MacTed's position: It is sufficient for this group to specify a mapping from database to a putative ontology. The result from this is RDF, and that satisfies the goal of this group. Going from this simplest possible RDF to a domain ontology is out of scope.
16:47:07 <hhalpin> q+
16:47:20 <cygri> q+
16:47:28 <nunolopes> …. we are using the mapping we define by using SQL
16:47:45 <mhausenblas> q?
16:47:50 <mhausenblas> ack Dan
16:48:15 <nunolopes> Dan: to clarify local ontology vs domain ontology
16:48:23 <hhalpin> Note that the charter is a bit vague about "The mapping language MUST define the mapping of relational data and relational schemas to RDF and OWL."
16:48:30 <hhalpin> whether a domain or putative ontology is used.
16:48:36 <nunolopes> … as souri said there is a mapping to "a" ontology
16:48:37 <mhausenblas> RRSAgent, draft minutes
16:48:37 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2010/04/27-rdb2rdf-minutes.html mhausenblas
16:48:39 <mhausenblas> q?
16:48:42 <hhalpin> I am not sure if domain or putative ontology are the words the database community uses.
16:48:46 <Zakim> -soeren
16:48:50 <mhausenblas> ack juansequeda 
16:48:50 <Zakim> juansequeda, you wanted to ask what if somebody wants to map to FOAF or SIOC or GoodRelations... etc
16:48:52 <nunolopes> … either an existing ontology or something just made up
16:49:29 <nunolopes> juansequeda: if we're not mapping to a domain ontology, what do you do yo people who expect your data to be mapped to a specific ontology
16:49:36 <nunolopes> MacTed: that's the next step
16:49:39 <souri> q-
16:49:43 <hhalpin> However, I would say transformation from a straightforward mapping  is *within* scope, and whether this is to be done with SQL views, SPARQL, or some other way is to be decided on some level as an option in R2ML..
16:49:52 <Dan> q+
16:49:58 <nunolopes> … use backward-chaining, not forcing the triples to be materialised
16:50:09 <cygri> mhausenblas: My position: For this group to produce anything useful, it has to provide an answer to the problem of getting from database data to FOAF, GoodRelations etc
16:50:20 <nunolopes> … there are cases where the SQL query directly maps to an ontology
16:50:26 <Ahmed> q?
16:50:31 <nunolopes> … but that is a limited subset of the use cases
16:50:41 <mhausenblas> ack hhalpin 
16:51:10 <mhausenblas> q?
16:51:17 <nunolopes> hhalpin: this is a usecase and requirement document
16:51:19 <Ahmed> q+
16:51:30 <nunolopes> … we should no specifiy what we will be using
16:51:46 <nunolopes> … the language should allow straightforward mapping
16:51:51 <mhausenblas> please no more people on the queue now. Ahmed is last, then we do the poll
16:51:55 <mhausenblas> q?
16:51:56 <nunolopes> …. or allow to map more
16:52:26 <nunolopes> … we can delay if we don't reach consencus
16:52:33 <mhausenblas> ack cygri
16:52:41 <Dan> q-
16:52:53 <mhausenblas> q?
16:53:05 <hhalpin> And remember that we're not doing the technical work in the use-case and requirement document :)
16:53:08 <nunolopes> cygri: regarding souri's comments, I agree with the general workflow
16:53:18 <nunolopes> … it's a matter of how to do it
16:53:20 <hhalpin> We have to specify it re use-cases and expressivity, no more.
16:53:32 <hhalpin> The question to me seems to be over expressivity, i.e. should we have *any*.
16:53:55 <nunolopes> … at this point we should not say anything that assumes it should be done by creating views or some other way
16:53:56 <souri> <DB> ===> (try to fit it to your target ontology by writing SQL queries, mapping of SQL queries to classes, query-result-cols to RDF properties) ===> virtual RDF data based on target on target ontology
16:54:04 <hhalpin> I would not concur with MacTed, i.e. we should allow (a perhaps optional) expressivity beyond a simple direct mapping.
16:54:26 <nunolopes> … we should focus on what we say in the requirements document
16:54:38 <hhalpin> we should not build any technical solution into the use-case document.
16:54:49 <mhausenblas> The two options for the strawman poll read:
16:54:56 <nunolopes> souri: the mapping should be figured by the human
16:55:02 <mhausenblas> 1. It is sufficient for this group to specify a mapping from database to a putative ontology. The result from this is RDF, and that satisfies the goal of this group. Going from this simplest possible RDF to a domain ontology is out of scope.
16:55:28 <nunolopes> … the question is what I have to do on top of the database schema to make it look like the target ontology
16:55:31 <mhausenblas> 2. For this group to produce anything useful, it has to provide an answer to the problem of getting from database data to FOAF, GoodRelations etc, we need to do both steps
16:55:35 <mhausenblas> q?
16:55:42 <nunolopes> … we prefer the SQL approach because we are oracle 
16:56:10 <nunolopes> … but if you don't want to use it it's fine
16:56:26 <mhausenblas> ack Ahmed 
16:56:42 <hhalpin> I agree, Souri's approach is not out of scope.
16:56:51 <hhalpin> In fact, I am arguing that it is in scope.
16:57:02 <hhalpin> But we don't want to specify it on the technical level, just the expressivity level.
16:57:31 <souri> why don't we postpone the voting on it instead of rushing to it
16:58:16 <nunolopes> Topic: straw poll 
16:58:29 <hhalpin> happy to put it into a WBS poll
16:58:34 <hhalpin> however, I will not get to it till this evening.
16:58:39 <hhalpin> I am at WWW2010.
16:59:06 <MacTed> <-- 1
16:59:08 <souri> the choices have to be understood well
16:59:22 <juansequeda> 2
16:59:24 <mhausenblas> 2
16:59:25 <Ahmed> 2
16:59:28 <hhalpin> 2
16:59:30 <Marcelo> 2
16:59:34 <Dan> 2
16:59:37 <souri> could you please put the choices here first
16:59:43 <hhalpin> 1. Just putative
16:59:44 <Ashok> 2
16:59:51 <souri> I don't remember the choices yet
16:59:52 <hhalpin> 2. Putative and domain ontology
16:59:54 <whalb> 2
16:59:56 <hhalpin> That was the options!
16:59:59 <lma2> 2
17:00:09 <hhalpin> Perhaps a poll is not necessary.
17:00:29 <soeren> 2
17:00:46 <souri> 0 -- the choices are not clear to me
17:01:07 <hhalpin> Let's chat over e-mail with MacTed to see how we can phase the distinction to make sure that it addresses your concerns, i.e. we should not *force* people to match to a domain ontology (i.e. to transforms besides direct mapping in *some* language)
17:01:12 <Zakim> -??P28
17:01:13 <Zakim> -Ashok_Malhotra
17:01:19 <Zakim> -Souri
17:01:20 <Zakim> - +1.512.471.aabb
17:01:20 <Zakim> -whalb
17:01:21 <Zakim> -mhausenblas
17:01:21 <Zakim> - +1.562.249.aaee
17:01:23 <Zakim> -juansequeda
17:01:23 <Zakim> -Seema
17:01:28 <mhausenblas> RRSAgent, draft minutes
17:01:28 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2010/04/27-rdb2rdf-minutes.html mhausenblas
17:01:38 <Zakim> -MacTed
17:01:44 <mhausenblas> Zakim, list attendees
17:01:44 <Zakim> As of this point the attendees have been Souri, whalb, MacTed, Seema, mhausenblas, Ashok_Malhotra, nunolopes, soeren, +1.562.249.aaaa, juansequeda, +1.512.471.aabb, cygri,
17:01:48 <Zakim> ... +1.562.249.aacc, +1.562.249.aadd, +1.562.249.aaee
17:01:54 <mhausenblas> RRSAgent, draft minutes
17:01:54 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2010/04/27-rdb2rdf-minutes.html mhausenblas
17:04:43 <mhausenblas> Zakim, bye
17:04:43 <Zakim> leaving.  As of this point the attendees were Souri, whalb, MacTed, Seema, mhausenblas, Ashok_Malhotra, nunolopes, soeren, +1.562.249.aaaa, juansequeda, +1.512.471.aabb, cygri,
17:04:43 <Zakim> Zakim has left #rdb2rdf
17:04:47 <Zakim> ... +1.562.249.aacc, +1.562.249.aadd, +1.562.249.aaee
17:04:50 <mhausenblas> RRSAgent, draft minutes
17:04:50 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2010/04/27-rdb2rdf-minutes.html mhausenblas
17:05:31 <mhausenblas> RRSAgent bye
17:05:36 <mhausenblas> RRSAgent, bye
17:05:36 <RRSAgent> I see no action items