Skip to topic | Skip to bottom

RDFTM.ConCall20050218r1.4 - 20 Feb 2005 - 16:58 - StevePeppertopic end

Start of topic | Skip to actions

Minutes of 2005-02-18 meeting


  1. Lack of contributions
  2. Review of Chapter 3
  3. Kaminsky's work: A sixth proposal?
  4. Discuss (once more) the evaluation criteria in Chapter 2: see Lars Marius' email with comments on the existing set of criteria, and my suggestion (in the document) to add the criteria "Genericness" (should perhaps be called "Genericity").
  5. Review the material now in Chapter 4
  6. Discuss how to achieve the Feb 24 deadline
  7. Next meeting

Action points:

  • ALL: Consider content of Chapter 4 (especially 4.1)
  • SP: Modify 2.1 in accordance with decision on criteria (see below) (DONE)
  • FV: Review whole document
  • VP: Review description of Unibo proposal in conjunction with MP
  • SP: Add Lars Marius to author list (DONE)
  • SP: Restructure Chapter 3 so that each proposal is described by "direction" (DONE: As far as possible)
  • LMG/SP: Add 3.6 with brief coverage of other proposals (DONE)
  • SP: Rewrite 4.2 to not include new proposals
  • SP: Investigate whether Ontopia can fund attendance at the Boston F2F for someone from Unibo.
  • FV/VP: Investigate whether Ciancarini can fund attendance at the Boston F2F for someone from Unibo.

Other decisions:

  • Kaminsky's work should not be covered in detail since it doesn't constitute a complete proposal for translating data from one paradigm to another. However, it should be mentioned in the new 3.6.
  • The criterion "Reversibility" should be removed. Reversibility (and round-tripping) are ways to assess completeness and fidelity. They are not evaluation criteria in their own right.
  • The notion of "genericity" (or the requirement to be able to handle translations in the absence of mapping information) is important and should be included somehow. More time is needed to reach a decision on whether to regard it as an evaluation criterion in its own right or to view it as one aspect of completeness.
  • Chapter 5, Conclusions, should consist of the following:
    • That semantic mappings appear to fit the requirements for data interoperability better than object mappings
    • That Garshol and Unibo appear to come closest to providing a useable solution
    • That there are some outstanding problems regarding semantic mappings (list these)


  • 2005-02-21 New draft ready for review (SP)
  • 2005-02-23 TELECON @ 18:30
  • 2005-02-24 First Working Draft ready for submission to WG
  • 2005-03-03/04 Discussion of Working Draft at Boston F2F

-- StevePepper - 19 Feb 2005
to top

You are here: RDFTM > MinutesOfConferenceCalls > ConCall20050218

to top

Copyright © 1999-2019 by the contributing authors. All material on this collaboration platform is the property of the contributing authors.
Ideas, requests, problems regarding Fabio's Wiki? Send feedback