Minutes of RDF DAWG telecon Tuesday 2004-06-08 for review

Minutes of RDF DAWG telecon Tuesday 2004-06-08 for review
=========================================================

Agenda
  http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-dawg/2004AprJun/0530.html

IRC log
  not currently available online - attached

ACTIONS
  ALL F2F2 registration at http://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35463/DAWGf2f2/
  EricP to send announcement of UC&R to rdfs-rules list
  Kendall to dispose of "3.3a Extensible Value Testing" variant
  EricP to send an example to the list (as a test case)
  RobS to tweak it that it doesn't work ??
  Simon draft 2 design proposals
  DanC to rephrase 3.8 with reference to protocol
  AndyS to email text for a requirement on streamable results

RESOLVED to adopt 3.9 as an objective


> 1. Convene, take roll, review record, agenda
> 
>  RDF Data Access Working Group
>  http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/DataAccess/
>  Tuesday 2004-06-08 14:30 UTC
>  Zakim Bridge +1.617.761.6200, conference 7333 ("RDFD")
>  http://www.w3.org/Guide/1998/08/teleconference-calendar#s_1343
>  supplementary chat: irc://irc.w3.org:6665/dawg
>       log to appear: http://www.w3.org/2004/06/08-dawg-irc
> 
> scribe: JosD

Present:
  Andy Seaborne
  Alberto Reggiori
  ChrisR
  Dan Connolly (chair)
  Dave Beckett
  Dirk Colaert
  Eric Prud'hommeaux
  Farrukh Najmi
  Howard Katz
  James Hendler
  Jos De Roo (scribe)
  Kendall Clark
  Kevin Wilkinson
  Pat Hayes
  Rob Shearer
  Simon Raboczi
  Steve Harris
  Yoshio Fukushige
Regrets:
  Bryan Thompson


> Minutes of RDF DAWG telcon 2004-06-01 for review
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-dawg/2004AprJun/0503.html

APPROVED as a true record of the meeting
Next meeting: 2004-06-15 14:30 UTC
Scribe: Farrukh Najmi

 
> 2. Status of July F2F
> 
> ACTION: RobS to set up hosting page for F2F
> in progress
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-dawg/2004AprJun/0523.html
> 
> ACTION: EricP to set up registration for F2F

RobS organizing logistics
  Carlsbad CA July 14-15
EricP has set up a registration page at
  http://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35463/DAWGf2f2/


> 3. Publication of Use Cases and Requirements (UC&R) document
> 
> ACTION: EricP done. woohoo!
> 
> http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/DataAccess/UseCases v1.101 was
> published as http://www.w3.org/TR/2004/WD-rdf-dawg-uc-20040602/
> 
> incoming comments 
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-dawg-comments/
> include one from Klyne.

DanC: klyne 
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-dawg/2004AprJun/0521.html
  no immediate changes of words required; keep for later update

ACTION: EricP to send announcement to rdfs-rules list


> 4. Review requirements, evaluating designs
> 
>  I'd like to take these in uc&r document order.
>  http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/DataAccess/UseCases#req
>  1.101 or better
> 
> 
> 
> -- 3.3 Extensible Value Testing
> 
> ACTION: EricP evaluate RDQL
> done:
>  RDQL functionality vs. DAWG requirements
>  Date: Tue, 1 Jun 2004 23:23:51 +0900
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-dawg/2004AprJun/0495.html
> 
> and note Alberto's reply re extensible value testing, and Andy's reply.
> 
> 
> note also:
> 
>  iTQL evaluation
>  Date: Fri, 4 Jun 2004 17:06:00 -0400
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-dawg/2004AprJun/0522.html
> 
> and Simon's reply
> 
> 
> how to dispose of "3.3a Extensible Value Testing" variant?

ACTION Kendall to dispose of "3.3a Extensible Value Testing" variant


> -- 3.4 Subgraph Results
> ACTION: RobS will email to the group a proposed change to cover this.
> (that 3.4 doesn't cover queries with disjunctions. re 3.4)

Yoshio: what if the original queried graph is a "merged" graph? 
DanC: want that people think up further for one week (only 2 prepared to 
vote)
AndyS: want to leave the ability to answer queries with optional arcs.
JimH: with some queries, you don't know what type you'll get back?
Alberto: +1 for optional arcs
RobS speaking against 3.4a
Yoshio: don't see the reason why we should restrict the answer to 
"subgraph"s

ACTION EricP send an example to the list (as a test case)
ACTION RobS to tweak it that it doesn't work ??


> -- 3.5 Local Queries
> 
> ACTION: BryanT to draft possible new requirement on independence of
> protocol and query language.

BryanT's action continued

 
> -- 3.6 Optional Match
> 
> It has been mentioned in several evaluations.
> straw poll: who is convinced this is a requirement?
> do we have consensus?

RobS: doesn't think that there is enough justification for such a 
requirement
Simon: pretty in defense of this requirement
Kendall: anyone want to drop the optional match variant?
AndyS: this is the #1 request I get for additional features
Yoshio: +1
JimH: in favor of keeping optionals in
  some conditional being done as an optional: we're doing lots of extra
  queries that i think we can do more easily with a single query with 
optionals
RobS: i'm not sure that i'm at abstaining vs. objecting
Simon: i can provide two defs:
  SQL outer joins + something products withing products
DanC: ignore the results if the first one fails, but how long
  will it take to get the details worked out, 2..3 months?
Howard: is optional the same as conditional? there is a conditional in 
XQuery
PatH: from "not being possible" to "extremely desirable"
DanC: that's an objective
Kendall: re eric's survey of impls, we have to think about the politics
  if we tell folks to switch to dawg-ql, and it doesn't have optionals,
  it's a harder sell.
DanC considers moving it to an objective
AndyS: let's finish the requirements discussion
  many of the proposed options seem to push us towards a style of ql,
  ala relational vs. graph; other reqs don't do that

ACTION Simon draft 2 design proposals


> -- 3.8 Bookmarkable Queries
> 
> not sure we're close to a decision here; intend to focus on other
> items this week.

RobS: would rather have a requirement that a query should be expressed as 
text
AndyS: 'GET'able via HTTP
RobS: someone speak in favour of this?
DanC: our mission is to promote interoperability. would consider my time 
well
  spent to get this done
RobS: this is talking about the protocol
AndyS: we could say a "bookmarable query request"

ACTION DanC: rephrase 3.8 with reference to protocol


> -- 3.9 Bandwidth-efficient Protocol
> ACTION: SteveH to write his experiences on bandwidth efficiency for
> querying and email to group.
> done:
> 
>  Bandwidth efficiency
>  Date: Tue, 1 Jun 2004 19:05:17 +0100
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-dawg/2004AprJun/0501.html
> 
>  Result set lantecy
>  Date: Wed, 2 Jun 2004 15:37:20 +0100
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-dawg/2004AprJun/0513.html

appeals to about 5 people; 6 or 7, maybe
Simon: bandwidth-efficient protocol is hard to measure
DanC: +1
RobS: it's more like a "let's keep in mind" (which is an objective)
Steve: it is quantifiable
DanC: does anybody have customers with this requirement?
Simon: we have features that won't work without efficiency
  could support latancy as a requirement and bandwidth as an
  objective: "the format in which" must not preclude serialization
DanC: people have argued that it is not testable
Simon: we can test streamability
AndyS: that would me you could process the first result before ...

several in favor of moving 3.9 to an objective
vote: no objections; no abstentions

RESOLVED to adopt 3.9 as an objective

ACTION AndyS to email text for a requirement on streamable results 


> -- 3.10 Result Limits
> 
> straw poll: who's convinced this is a requirements? are we close
> to a decision here?

AndyS: RDQL does not have a limit. Joseki provides limits.
PatH: it could mean 2 things: I don't want more than 10 answers
  and the next ones after that or *just* 10
AndyS: seen this to prevent error conditions
EricP: SQL has it
RobS: there are other things in SQL that we don't have
Steve: can affect latency
AndyS: can be either a query or a protocol issue
EricP: arguing from the point of view of a straightforward implementation
  (for both client and server)
Yoshio: but then we need a way to specify the snapshot of the database
RobS: what is understood as a "result"
Kevin: do we want an exact upper bound? could cause more impl burden on 
the server
DanC: does "upper bound" appeal to somebody?
Kevin: yes
FarrukhNajmi: +1
PatH: DQL could, by request, give a count of results
DanC: motivation to spend time on this is in discussing/bounderaries with 
other groups

Jun 08 11:01:55 <JosD>  ==== ADJOURNED




> -- 4.2 Provenance
> 
> note SteveH's reply re provenance implementation experience with RDQL
> 
> 
> -- 4.4 User-specifiable Serialization
> 
> ACTION: KendellC to elaborate on 4.4 
> 
> 
> -- 4.6 Additional Semantic Information
> 
> ACTION: AndyS to revise SeRQL and resend
> done:
>  SeRQL evaluation
>  Date: Wed, 2 Jun 2004 15:13:00 +0100 
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-dawg/2004AprJun/0510.html
> 
> 
> 4. Review test materials (ACTION SteveH)
> 
> Testcase queries temporarily available at:
> http://www.ecs.soton.ac.uk/~swh/TestSketchCases/
> ACTION: SteveH continues
> 
> doubt we can afford much time for this item this week,
> but I don't want to drop it.
> 
> 
> p.s. This agenda is a few hours late. If that inconveniences
> anybody, please do let me know. I have about 1 hour between
> the start of my workday and when the agenda is due, and half
> of it is taken by a meeting. I could try to do agendas
> on Fridays, but that's harder.

-- 
Jos De Roo, AGFA http://www.agfa.com/w3c/jdroo/