IRC log of rdb2rdf on 2010-05-04

Timestamps are in UTC.

15:59:57 [RRSAgent]
RRSAgent has joined #rdb2rdf
15:59:57 [RRSAgent]
logging to http://www.w3.org/2010/05/04-rdb2rdf-irc
15:59:59 [trackbot]
RRSAgent, make logs world
15:59:59 [Zakim]
Zakim has joined #rdb2rdf
16:00:01 [trackbot]
Zakim, this will be 7322733
16:00:01 [Zakim]
ok, trackbot; I see SW_RDB2RDF()12:00PM scheduled to start now
16:00:02 [trackbot]
Meeting: RDB2RDF Working Group Teleconference
16:00:02 [trackbot]
Date: 04 May 2010
16:00:16 [mhausenblas]
Chair:
16:00:21 [mhausenblas]
Chair: Ahmed
16:00:30 [mhausenblas]
Agenda: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdb2rdf-wg/2010May/0002.html
16:00:43 [mhausenblas]
RRSAgent, make logs public
16:00:49 [mhausenblas]
RRSAgent, draft minutes
16:00:49 [RRSAgent]
I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2010/05/04-rdb2rdf-minutes.html mhausenblas
16:00:53 [MacTed]
Zakim, this is 7322733
16:00:53 [Zakim]
ok, MacTed; that matches SW_RDB2RDF()12:00PM
16:00:54 [Zakim]
+juansequeda
16:00:59 [MacTed]
Zakim, who's here?
16:00:59 [Zakim]
On the phone I see whalb, ??P1, OpenLink_Software, juansequeda
16:01:00 [Zakim]
On IRC I see RRSAgent, Angela, whalb, hhalpin, MacTed, cygri, mhausenblas, nunolopes, LeeF, trackbot, ericP
16:01:08 [MacTed]
Zakim, OpenLink_Software is temporarily me
16:01:08 [Zakim]
+MacTed; got it
16:01:11 [MacTed]
Zakim, mute me
16:01:11 [Zakim]
MacTed should now be muted
16:01:17 [juansequeda]
juansequeda has joined #RDB2RDF
16:01:19 [cygri_]
cygri_ has joined #rdb2rdf
16:01:36 [Zakim]
+mhausenblas
16:01:52 [Ashok]
Ashok has joined #rdb2rdf
16:01:58 [mhausenblas]
Zakim, cygri_ is with mhausenblas
16:01:58 [Zakim]
+cygri_; got it
16:02:06 [Zakim]
+ +39.046.128.aaaa
16:02:07 [mhausenblas]
Zakim, nunolopes is with mhausenblas
16:02:07 [Zakim]
+nunolopes; got it
16:02:17 [soeren]
soeren has joined #RDB2RDF
16:02:42 [lima]
lima has joined #rdb2rdf
16:02:56 [Zakim]
+??P21
16:02:59 [Zakim]
-??P21
16:03:18 [mhausenblas]
Zakim, cygri is with mhausenblas
16:03:18 [Zakim]
+cygri; got it
16:03:22 [Zakim]
+soeren
16:04:04 [mhausenblas]
regrets+ Marcelo
16:04:08 [Zakim]
+Ashok_Malhotra
16:04:13 [Zakim]
+??P25
16:04:15 [mhausenblas]
regrets+ Seema
16:04:20 [Ahmed]
Ahmed has joined #RDB2RDF
16:04:34 [mhausenblas]
rrsagent, draft minutes
16:04:34 [RRSAgent]
I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2010/05/04-rdb2rdf-minutes.html mhausenblas
16:05:06 [mhausenblas]
Topic: Admin
16:05:20 [harryhalpin]
harryhalpin has joined #rdb2rdf
16:05:22 [mhausenblas]
Zakim, who's here?
16:05:22 [Zakim]
On the phone I see whalb, ??P1, MacTed (muted), juansequeda, mhausenblas, +39.046.128.aaaa, soeren, Ashok_Malhotra, ??P25
16:05:24 [Zakim]
mhausenblas has mhausenblas, cygri_, nunolopes, cygri
16:05:25 [Zakim]
On IRC I see harryhalpin, Ahmed, lima, soeren, Ashok, cygri, juansequeda, Zakim, RRSAgent, Angela, whalb, hhalpin, MacTed, mhausenblas, nunolopes, LeeF, trackbot, ericP
16:05:59 [Zakim]
+??P27
16:06:19 [mhausenblas]
regrets+ Souri
16:06:26 [mhausenblas]
regrets+ Dan
16:07:11 [mhausenblas]
PROPOSAL: accept minutes from last telecon http://www.w3.org/2010/04/27-rdb2rdf-minutes.html
16:07:28 [soeren]
+1
16:07:29 [juansequeda]
+1
16:07:35 [mhausenblas]
RESOLUTION: WG accepted minutes from last telecon http://www.w3.org/2010/04/27-rdb2rdf-minutes.html
16:07:51 [mhausenblas]
Zakim, pick victim
16:07:51 [Zakim]
I don't understand 'pick victim', mhausenblas
16:08:07 [mhausenblas]
scribenick: nunolopes
16:08:31 [cygri]
for next time
16:08:44 [Ahmed]
Ahmed has joined #RDB2RDF
16:08:48 [nunolopes]
Topic: Goal of the WG re mapping
16:09:08 [juansequeda]
http://is.gd/bTNFm
16:09:08 [mhausenblas]
http://docs.google.com/drawings/pub?id=1de31u5wBUheygJTXbxXE7e7H7QI_is9hEXi5dOO5knE&w=960&h=720
16:09:13 [Zakim]
+[IPcaller]
16:09:23 [hhalpin]
Zakim, [IPcaller] is hhalpin
16:09:23 [Zakim]
+hhalpin; got it
16:09:29 [MacTed]
Zakim, unmute me
16:09:29 [Zakim]
MacTed should no longer be muted
16:09:35 [nunolopes]
mhausenblas: new picture from juansequeda
16:10:08 [nunolopes]
juansequeda: the picture describes our two options
16:10:21 [nunolopes]
… option 1 uses the putative ontology
16:10:43 [nunolopes]
… option 2 uses the domain ontology
16:10:58 [nunolopes]
… and the result will be subset (non-isomorphic)
16:11:08 [nunolopes]
… with the relational database schema
16:11:34 [nunolopes]
… hopefully this image will give us a clear picture of where we are
16:12:01 [nunolopes]
Ahmed: we have been talking about the second option since before MacTed joined
16:12:05 [hhalpin]
q+
16:12:21 [MacTed]
q+
16:12:36 [mhausenblas]
ack hhalpin
16:12:37 [hhalpin]
ack hhalpin
16:12:57 [nunolopes]
Orri: I agree with Ahmed that we should support more "expressive"? translations
16:13:12 [Zakim]
-hhalpin
16:13:29 [nunolopes]
hhalpin: is there a vocabulary problem with the group?
16:13:31 [mhausenblas]
ack MacTed
16:13:40 [Zakim]
-soeren
16:13:44 [Ashok]
q-
16:13:50 [nunolopes]
MacTed: I am not saying that option 2 should dissapear
16:13:53 [Zakim]
+Lee_Feigenbaum
16:14:05 [nunolopes]
… option 2 actually is included in option 1
16:14:16 [Zakim]
+soeren
16:14:19 [Ashok]
q+
16:14:23 [mhausenblas]
q?
16:14:31 [juansequeda]
There were some typos. I just corrected the image: http://docs.google.com/drawings/edit?id=1de31u5wBUheygJTXbxXE7e7H7QI_is9hEXi5dOO5knE
16:14:36 [nunolopes]
… where this step is visible from the tool or not it is still required
16:14:58 [Ahmed]
q
16:15:04 [juansequeda]
Apologies, the link is http://docs.google.com/drawings/pub?id=1de31u5wBUheygJTXbxXE7e7H7QI_is9hEXi5dOO5knE&w=960&h=720
16:15:07 [mhausenblas]
q?
16:15:10 [Ahmed]
q+
16:15:10 [nunolopes]
… iterating/separating the steps all is satisfied
16:15:11 [LeeF]
q+ to ask what explciit inclusion of the local ontology stuff adds to the specification
16:15:26 [nunolopes]
… the local ontology mapping should not be disregarded
16:15:33 [mhausenblas]
ack Ashok
16:15:48 [mhausenblas]
Zakim, who's here?
16:15:48 [Zakim]
On the phone I see whalb, ??P1, MacTed, juansequeda, mhausenblas, +39.046.128.aaaa, Ashok_Malhotra, ??P25, ??P27, Lee_Feigenbaum (muted), soeren
16:15:50 [Zakim]
mhausenblas has mhausenblas, cygri_, nunolopes, cygri
16:15:51 [Zakim]
On IRC I see Ahmed, harryhalpin, lima, soeren, Ashok, cygri, juansequeda, Zakim, RRSAgent, Angela, whalb, hhalpin, MacTed, mhausenblas, nunolopes, LeeF, trackbot, ericP
16:16:04 [LeeF]
+1 to Ashok's observation
16:16:07 [mhausenblas]
+1
16:16:08 [nunolopes]
Ashok: Anyone disagrees that what we are to standardize is option 2, with option 1 being a subset of option 2?
16:16:08 [soeren]
+1
16:16:10 [cygri]
+1 to ashok
16:16:23 [mhausenblas]
ack Ahmed
16:16:42 [harry2halpin]
harry2halpin has joined #rdb2rdf
16:16:59 [nunolopes]
Ahmed: I …?. with ashok.
16:17:13 [harry2halpin]
but basically, I think we should do option 2.
16:17:33 [nunolopes]
… nobody said that specifing the domiain ontology is static
16:17:44 [harry2halpin]
it's just that the vocabulary in the use-case document needs to be neutral about *how* to do it, i.e. neutral between ericP's sparql construct approach or a SQL view approach
16:17:50 [mhausenblas]
s/...?/agree
16:17:51 [nunolopes]
s/…?./agree/
16:18:02 [mhausenblas]
RRSAgent, draft minutes
16:18:02 [RRSAgent]
I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2010/05/04-rdb2rdf-minutes.html mhausenblas
16:18:10 [mhausenblas]
q?
16:18:12 [LeeF]
ack me
16:18:13 [Zakim]
LeeF, you wanted to ask what explciit inclusion of the local ontology stuff adds to the specification
16:18:15 [mhausenblas]
ack LeeF
16:18:22 [nunolopes]
LeeF: I agree with Ashok
16:18:48 [Zakim]
+[IPcaller]
16:19:01 [harry2halpin]
Zakim, [IPcaller] is harry2halpin
16:19:01 [Zakim]
+harry2halpin; got it
16:19:21 [nunolopes]
… MacTed do you say that there is some value in explicitly doing the transformation from the local ontology to the domain ontology
16:19:30 [nunolopes]
… what is that value?
16:19:56 [nunolopes]
s/… MacTed/MacTed/
16:20:15 [harry2halpin]
no-one is saying that a central isomorphic transformation will not be part of the spec
16:20:26 [nunolopes]
MacTed: the simple transformation is a vital part of the mapping
16:21:36 [mhausenblas]
q?
16:21:39 [Ahmed]
q+
16:21:40 [nunolopes]
?? : if the final specification requires a more complex transformation such that the direct mapping is a specific case of it why is it still needed to call it directly
16:21:56 [LeeF]
s/??/LeeF
16:21:56 [mhausenblas]
q?
16:22:25 [nunolopes]
harry2halpin: I would like that the direct mapping should be part of the use case document
16:22:30 [nunolopes]
… but not necessary
16:22:42 [nunolopes]
MacTed: yes, tools may hide this direct mapping
16:22:48 [mhausenblas]
ack Ahmed
16:23:04 [harry2halpin]
but that R2ML should allow this direct mapping.
16:23:13 [nunolopes]
Ahmed: we should select option 2
16:23:34 [nunolopes]
… are you saying that we should do option 2?
16:24:13 [nunolopes]
MacTed: I belive option 2 contains option 1
16:24:17 [LeeF]
Sounds like everyone is in agreement thta Option 2 contains Option 1
16:24:24 [nunolopes]
… and that option 1 should not be made invisible
16:24:30 [mhausenblas]
yes, indeed, we seem to agree
16:24:39 [harry2halpin]
We agree with that MacTed, R2ML should be able to do a local ontology mapping.
16:24:39 [mhausenblas]
I'd propose to move to the UCR document now
16:24:41 [LeeF]
I think what MacTed is asking for is that the specification explicitly calls out 1 particular transformation: the direct mapping transform
16:24:57 [nunolopes]
Ahmed: we should have a mechanism that allows the user not only to use the local ontology but also the domain ontology mapping
16:25:11 [nunolopes]
Topic: use case document
16:25:20 [mhausenblas]
PROPOSAL send out http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/rdb2rdf/use-cases/ as FPWD
16:25:51 [nunolopes]
mhausenblas: In the current stage, do you have any objections (specifically for MacTed)
16:25:59 [Ashok]
q+
16:26:02 [nunolopes]
MacTed: yes, there are some changes
16:26:25 [nunolopes]
… I would like to express the following cases
16:26:40 [harry2halpin]
Note that Juan has added texts to make it more use-case like MacTed.
16:26:41 [nunolopes]
… it still feels more like case studies than a use cases document
16:27:21 [nunolopes]
MacTed: can you write a mail with some concrete changes?
16:27:30 [nunolopes]
s/MacTed/mhausenblas/
16:27:39 [juansequeda]
juansequeda has joined #RDB2RDF
16:27:42 [nunolopes]
MacTed: I can do that
16:27:42 [MacTed]
tthibodeau
16:28:05 [mhausenblas]
ACTION: tthibodeau to write up changes for UCR document and send to the list
16:28:05 [trackbot]
Sorry, couldn't find user - tthibodeau
16:28:27 [harry2halpin]
Note that this is a problem with your AC Rep.
16:28:39 [harry2halpin]
So MacTed, please have your AC rep approve of your membership in the group!
16:28:45 [soeren]
+q
16:28:49 [harry2halpin]
There is nothing W3C staff can do until your AC Rep approves.
16:28:54 [nunolopes]
Ashok: publishing the document does not mean we cannot change it
16:29:00 [nunolopes]
… it's a first public draft
16:29:04 [mhausenblas]
ACTION: mhausenb to take MacTed's changes into account before issuing FPWD
16:29:04 [trackbot]
Created ACTION-52 - Take MacTed's changes into account before issuing FPWD [on Michael Hausenblas - due 2010-05-11].
16:29:14 [nunolopes]
… we can further work on it
16:29:22 [mhausenblas]
q?
16:29:27 [mhausenblas]
ack Ashok
16:29:30 [Ashok]
q-
16:29:31 [nunolopes]
mhausenblas: yes, we just waited for a few changes
16:29:35 [ericP]
Zakim, please dial ericP-office
16:29:35 [Zakim]
ok, ericP; the call is being made
16:29:37 [Zakim]
+EricP
16:29:47 [ericP]
Zakim, please disconnect ericP
16:29:47 [Zakim]
EricP is being disconnected
16:29:48 [LeeF]
q+
16:29:48 [Zakim]
-EricP
16:29:50 [LeeF]
ack me
16:29:53 [ericP]
Zakim, please dial ericP-mobile
16:29:53 [Zakim]
ok, ericP; the call is being made
16:29:53 [nunolopes]
soeren: I feel that uc5 and uc6 are not use-cases but requirements
16:29:55 [Zakim]
+EricP
16:29:58 [harry2halpin]
q+
16:30:02 [mhausenblas]
ack soeren
16:30:29 [nunolopes]
… the labeling 'functional' and non-functional is also a problem
16:30:33 [mhausenblas]
PROPOSAL" move UC5 and UC6 to reqs
16:30:34 [LeeF]
Note that UC5 and UC6 are my use cases - I mainly care that they be included as requirements
16:30:54 [nunolopes]
LeeF: in the end I care that they are accepted as requirements
16:31:13 [nunolopes]
… but it doesn't make sense to have requirements that don't derive from use-cases
16:31:40 [mhausenblas]
RRSAgent, draft minutes
16:31:40 [RRSAgent]
I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2010/05/04-rdb2rdf-minutes.html mhausenblas
16:32:05 [soeren]
+q
16:32:36 [mhausenblas]
ack harry2halpin
16:32:46 [Zakim]
- +39.046.128.aaaa
16:32:53 [nunolopes]
harry2halpin: the functional and non functional seem ok
16:33:06 [harry2halpin]
q- harry2halpin
16:33:09 [mhausenblas]
ack soeren
16:33:10 [LeeF]
I've always used (for better or for worse) http://www.w3.org/TR/rdf-dawg-uc/#uc as my guide for UC&R gathering
16:33:15 [Ahmed]
q+
16:33:35 [nunolopes]
soeren: reg uc5 and 6 are more requirements since all the other use cases are regarding a specific domain
16:33:39 [MacTed]
q+
16:33:41 [mhausenblas]
ack Ahmed
16:33:43 [nunolopes]
… these are more domain independent
16:33:49 [mhausenblas]
q?
16:34:00 [nunolopes]
Ahmed: the uc6 is not clear to me what is the use case
16:34:09 [mhausenblas]
q?
16:34:28 [nunolopes]
LeeF: I can clarify but need to go
16:34:32 [Zakim]
-Lee_Feigenbaum
16:34:36 [nunolopes]
mhausenblas: let's sort it out via mail
16:34:56 [mhausenblas]
q?
16:35:18 [mhausenblas]
ack MacTed
16:35:33 [nunolopes]
MacTed: the closest thing to a use case is 5 and 6 together
16:35:48 [nunolopes]
Ahmed: when I read n6 I don't see that
16:36:07 [LeeF]
(FWIW, whoever it was who expressed UC6 as dealing with conflations of shema data and instance data had it exactly right - the idea is that we see many DB tables where some sort of indicator value in the row denotes the specific type of instance that the row represents - we need to be able to map that to an appropriate rdf:type when mapping from the RDB data to the RDF data)
16:36:08 [nunolopes]
… this should be sent for formal feedback soon
16:36:23 [nunolopes]
… after that the editors can just do some changes
16:36:32 [harry2halpin]
+1 to be made public
16:36:47 [nunolopes]
harry2halpin: if this is only a public draft I'm ok with it
16:36:57 [nunolopes]
s/harry2halpin/MacTed/
16:37:06 [mhausenblas]
q?
16:37:15 [nunolopes]
Ahmed: it should be more than that
16:37:32 [harry2halpin]
Releasing a document for the sake of releasing a document is W3C process.
16:37:33 [nunolopes]
… we spent a lot of time to release it
16:38:09 [nunolopes]
MacTed: we should have the document released but with what we agree on
16:38:22 [harry2halpin]
q+
16:38:31 [mhausenblas]
q?
16:38:49 [mhausenblas]
ack harry2halpin
16:39:06 [harry2halpin]
ack harry2halpin
16:39:08 [nunolopes]
Ahmed: the document is a milestone, we should finalise and send it for review, 1 week feedback
16:39:27 [nunolopes]
harry2halpin: it's normal W3C process to release working drafts
16:39:43 [nunolopes]
… we should release it asap
16:40:16 [nunolopes]
… a brief discussion on some notations should be in order
16:40:24 [soeren]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-functional_requirement
16:40:40 [Zakim]
-soeren
16:40:49 [nunolopes]
mhausenblas: regarding renaming of function requirements to core requirements and non functional to auxiliary
16:40:54 [Ahmed]
q+
16:40:55 [mhausenblas]
PROPOSAL: change func req to core and non-functional to ausiliary
16:41:02 [mhausenblas]
ack Ahmed
16:41:13 [Zakim]
+soeren
16:41:22 [Ashok]
s/ausiliary/auxiliary/
16:41:30 [nunolopes]
Ahmed: let's see what other people say but I disagree with the change
16:41:38 [juansequeda]
q+
16:41:48 [nunolopes]
… let's send the document and wait for comments
16:42:08 [nunolopes]
mhausenblas: in that case the version 1.24 will be for one week under working group review?
16:42:14 [nunolopes]
… what will be the process?
16:42:31 [nunolopes]
Ahmed: let's set some time to reconcile the emails as a group
16:42:51 [mhausenblas]
PROPOSAL: send out current version 1.24 for WG internal review, 1 week, feedback via mailing list
16:43:02 [ericP]
second
16:43:15 [nunolopes]
juansequeda: only for internal review
16:43:21 [nunolopes]
mhausenblas: yes
16:43:32 [juansequeda]
+1
16:43:51 [harry2halpin]
+1, but then we really have to get consensus on it next week to publish.
16:43:58 [nunolopes]
mhausenblas: please make sure that you do send a mail to the list so we have a record to work on next week
16:44:03 [mhausenblas]
yes, harry2halpin
16:44:32 [harry2halpin]
+1 ericP, let's discuss this now.
16:44:59 [nunolopes]
ericP: juansequeda was making a case for direct mapping with no remaning would be the putative ontology?
16:45:12 [nunolopes]
juansequeda: 3.1.1 direct
16:45:54 [harry2halpin]
q+
16:45:55 [nunolopes]
ACCEPTED: send out current version 1.24 for WG internal review, 1 week, feedback via mailing list
16:46:26 [nunolopes]
juansequeda: does everyone understand 3.1.1 and 3.1.2?
16:46:42 [harry2halpin]
it was simple enough for me to understand, but I'm more comfortable with using graph/isomorphism terminology than domain/putative ontology talk.
16:46:43 [nunolopes]
RESOLUTION: the current version of the UCR at  http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/rdb2rdf/use-cases/ (v1.24) is under review for 1 week, WG internally. All members should review and send in comments via the RDB2RDF mailing list.
16:46:50 [mhausenblas]
RRSAgent, draft mintues
16:46:50 [RRSAgent]
I'm logging. I don't understand 'draft mintues', mhausenblas. Try /msg RRSAgent help
16:46:53 [mhausenblas]
RRSAgent, draft minutes
16:46:53 [RRSAgent]
I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2010/05/04-rdb2rdf-minutes.html mhausenblas
16:47:42 [mhausenblas]
RRSAgent, draft minutes
16:47:42 [RRSAgent]
I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2010/05/04-rdb2rdf-minutes.html mhausenblas
16:48:28 [nunolopes]
MacTed: there seems to be a slight inconsistency in the headings
16:49:12 [nunolopes]
… 3.1.1 isomorphic
16:49:22 [nunolopes]
… 3.1.2 non isomorphic
16:49:22 [mhausenblas]
MacTed: please note that our resolution somehow has superseded our actions - will remove them again
16:49:40 [nunolopes]
… 3.1.2 a is currrently 3.1.3 (SQLTran)
16:50:21 [nunolopes]
juansequeda: so 3.1.4 would be part of the direct
16:50:30 [nunolopes]
MacTed: yes, think so
16:50:59 [nunolopes]
… I think label generation comes from the schema and is part of the direct translation
16:51:09 [Ahmed]
q+
16:51:20 [nunolopes]
… label transformation doesn't seem to be described
16:52:29 [mhausenblas]
ack juansequeda
16:52:38 [mhausenblas]
ack harry2halpin
16:52:42 [mhausenblas]
q?
16:53:08 [nunolopes]
harry2halpin: a direct transformation from the relational schema to a graph
16:53:24 [ericP]
q+ to clarify SQLGEN
16:53:30 [nunolopes]
… which terminology should we use?
16:53:42 [harry2halpin]
domain/putative ontology?
16:53:48 [nunolopes]
… domain/putative?
16:53:51 [mhausenblas]
ack Ahmed
16:54:15 [nunolopes]
Ahmed: local and domain ontology are well understood outside the RDF comunity
16:54:21 [harry2halpin]
so we need to make an edit to the spec to use domain/putative ontology rather than purely direct/non-direct transform.
16:54:31 [nunolopes]
… I suggest we use those
16:54:48 [mhausenblas]
ack ericP
16:54:48 [Zakim]
ericP, you wanted to clarify SQLGEN
16:55:12 [nunolopes]
ericP: this literature comes from 1992
16:55:25 [nunolopes]
… not necessarially reg RDF
16:55:46 [MacTed]
the beauty of this is we can define the term in the document.
16:56:01 [harry2halpin]
we can then specify what precisely we mean in terms of RDF.
16:56:02 [nunolopes]
mhausenblas: I also suggest local and domain ontology
16:56:04 [harry2halpin]
q+
16:56:14 [mhausenblas]
ack harry2halpin
16:56:46 [harry2halpin]
ack harry2halpin
16:56:57 [nunolopes]
ericP: where dumping the data into a graph that can be described by an ontology
16:57:57 [nunolopes]
? : we should use a vocabulary widely used like from the database comunity
16:58:05 [nunolopes]
s/?/harry2halpin
16:58:34 [nunolopes]
… but we can use the terms if we define them properly
16:59:08 [nunolopes]
juansequeda: we translate the data which is an instance of the ontology
16:59:24 [nunolopes]
… option 1 uses a putative/local ontology
16:59:37 [nunolopes]
… option 2 uses a domain ontology
17:00:23 [mhausenblas]
PROPOSAL: use local and domain ontology throughout the document and make clear that the data is an instance
17:00:34 [nunolopes]
ericP: we should be able to run the transform in both ways.
17:00:45 [nunolopes]
… take a sparql query and turn it into a SQL query
17:01:00 [nunolopes]
MacTed: the transformation should be reversible?
17:01:04 [nunolopes]
ericP: yes
17:01:12 [harry2halpin]
+1
17:01:14 [juansequeda]
+1
17:01:40 [nunolopes]
RESOLVED: use local and domain ontology throughout the document and make clear that the data is an instance
17:01:56 [mhausenblas]
RRSAgent, draft minutes
17:01:56 [RRSAgent]
I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2010/05/04-rdb2rdf-minutes.html mhausenblas
17:02:23 [harry2halpin]
q+
17:02:59 [mhausenblas]
ack harry2halpin
17:03:24 [harry2halpin]
"Coercing the relational graph into this pattern requires graph transformation."
17:03:44 [harry2halpin]
dump to RDF->then use SPARQL constructs that direct RDF graph.
17:04:09 [harry2halpin]
coercing the relational data into this pattern requires non-isomorphic graph transformations, i.e. transformation into a domain ontology
17:04:16 [harry2halpin]
"coercing the relational data into this pattern requires non-isomorphic graph transformations, i.e. transformation into a domain ontology"
17:04:22 [mhausenblas]
q?
17:06:00 [Zakim]
-whalb
17:06:05 [mhausenblas]
[adjourned]
17:06:08 [ericP]
ACTION: ericP to send a READ ME request
17:06:08 [trackbot]
Sorry, couldn't find user - ericP
17:06:13 [Zakim]
-??P25
17:06:14 [Zakim]
-soeren
17:06:14 [Zakim]
-??P27
17:06:14 [Zakim]
-MacTed
17:06:14 [ericP]
ACTION: eric to send a READ ME request
17:06:14 [trackbot]
Created ACTION-53 - Send a READ ME request [on Eric Prud'hommeaux - due 2010-05-11].
17:06:16 [Zakim]
-mhausenblas
17:06:28 [nunolopes1]
nunolopes1 has joined #RDB2RDF
17:06:28 [mhausenblas]
RRSAgent, draft minutes
17:06:28 [RRSAgent]
I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2010/05/04-rdb2rdf-minutes.html mhausenblas
17:06:42 [Zakim]
-juansequeda
17:06:55 [mhausenblas]
Zakim, list attendees
17:06:55 [Zakim]
As of this point the attendees have been whalb, juansequeda, MacTed, mhausenblas, cygri_, +39.046.128.aaaa, nunolopes, cygri, soeren, Ashok_Malhotra, hhalpin, Lee_Feigenbaum,
17:06:58 [Zakim]
... harry2halpin, EricP
17:07:02 [mhausenblas]
RRSAgent, draft minutes
17:07:02 [RRSAgent]
I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2010/05/04-rdb2rdf-minutes.html mhausenblas
17:07:37 [mhausenblas]
Zakim. who's here?
17:07:42 [mhausenblas]
Zakim, who's here?
17:07:42 [Zakim]
On the phone I see ??P1, Ashok_Malhotra, harry2halpin, EricP
17:07:43 [Zakim]
On IRC I see nunolopes1, juansequeda, lima, soeren, Ashok, cygri, Zakim, RRSAgent, MacTed, mhausenblas, LeeF, trackbot, ericP
17:08:11 [Zakim]
-Ashok_Malhotra
17:08:43 [Zakim]
-??P1
17:09:56 [nunolopes]
nunolopes has joined #RDB2RDF
17:10:00 [mhausenblas]
Zakim. who's here?
17:10:04 [mhausenblas]
Zakim, who's here?
17:10:04 [Zakim]
On the phone I see harry2halpin, EricP
17:10:05 [Zakim]
On IRC I see nunolopes, juansequeda, soeren, Ashok, cygri, Zakim, RRSAgent, MacTed, mhausenblas, LeeF, trackbot, ericP
17:10:54 [mhausenblas]
Zakim, who's here?
17:10:54 [Zakim]
On the phone I see harry2halpin, EricP
17:10:55 [Zakim]
On IRC I see nunolopes, juansequeda, soeren, Ashok, cygri, Zakim, RRSAgent, MacTed, mhausenblas, LeeF, trackbot, ericP
17:22:31 [cygri]
cygri has joined #rdb2rdf
17:25:43 [Zakim]
-harry2halpin
17:25:44 [Zakim]
-EricP
17:25:46 [Zakim]
SW_RDB2RDF()12:00PM has ended
17:25:47 [Zakim]
Attendees were whalb, juansequeda, MacTed, mhausenblas, cygri_, +39.046.128.aaaa, nunolopes, cygri, soeren, Ashok_Malhotra, hhalpin, Lee_Feigenbaum, harry2halpin, EricP
17:26:32 [cygri]
cygri has left #rdb2rdf
19:30:41 [Zakim]
Zakim has left #rdb2rdf
19:52:43 [cygri_]
cygri_ has joined #rdb2rdf
19:52:47 [cygri_]
cygri_ has left #rdb2rdf
19:56:17 [nunolopes]
nunolopes has joined #RDB2RDF