Skip to topic | Skip to bottom
Home

RDFTM
RDFTM.ConCall20050223r1.2 - 24 Feb 2005 - 09:43 - StevePeppertopic end

Start of topic | Skip to actions

Minutes of 2005-02-23 meeting

Agenda

  1. 2.1: Now just "completeness" and "fidelity". Are we OK with that?
  2. 2.3.1: Changed test case slightly
  3. 4.1: How to explain why fidelity important?
  4. 4.2: OK with this?
  5. 5: OK with this?
  6. Boston F2F: Any news?
  7. Priorities when completeness and fidelity conflict?
    • we will provide guidelines. do we need to give any kind of guarantees of completeness or fidelity for documents that do not follow the guidelines?

Action points:

  • FV: Discuss with Ciancarini possibility of funding Boston trip for VP
  • SP: Modify definition of completeness (see below) [DONE]
  • SP: Add note about need to review test case examples in light of change to TM2RDF test case [DONE]
  • SP: Extend 3.4.1 to cover bullet list in Garshol 3a under "Going the other way" [DONE]
  • SP: Extend 4.2.4, 4.2.7, and 4.2.8 with reference to the above. [DONE]
  • SP: Add to desc of Kaminsky something along the following lines: "Regardless of its merits it is considered to be outside the scope of the RDFTM task force's mandate." [DONE]
  • SP: Add a couple of sentences on whatever is relevant in Pepper 03's contribution. [DONE]
  • FV: Formulate conclusion TONIGHT!!!
  • NP: Send title of Unibo thesis to SP prestissimo! [DONE]
  • SP: Insert explanation of the importance of fidelity.

Other decisions:

  • Definition of completeness: "The criterion completeness is used to evaluate the extent to which each proposal is able to handle every semantic construct that can be expressed in the source model and provide a means to represent it without loss of information in the target model. A complete translation will by definition be reversible."

  • re. importance of fidelity: base this on LMG's email 23/2 18:25 but replace "interoperate" with "merge" in first bullet point. Also add semantic mapping comparison; characterize the example as an object mapping (not Garshol2); and add point about (unnecessary) indirection which has different semantics, is more verbose and performs less well.

  • basically happy with 4.2

Timelines:

  • 2005-xx-xx ... (XX)
  • 2005-xx-xx TELECON @ 00:00

-- StevePepper - 23 Feb 2005
to top


You are here: RDFTM > MinutesOfConferenceCalls > ConCall20050223

to top

Copyright © 1999-2017 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