W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-rdf-dawg@w3.org > October to December 2004

agenda: RDF Data Access 26 Oct

From: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>
Date: Mon, 25 Oct 2004 13:21:56 -0500
To: RDF Data Access Working Group <public-rdf-dawg@w3.org>
Message-Id: <1098728516.14529.879.camel@dirk>
1. Convene, take roll, review record and agenda

  RDF Data Access Working Group
  Tuesday 2004-10-26 10:30am-12:30pm/14:30-16:30 UTC
  Zakim Bridge +1.617.761.6200, conference 7333 ("RDFD")
  supplementary chat: irc://irc.w3.org:6665/dawg
    log to appear: http://www.w3.org/2004/10/26-dawg-irc

roll call
Scribe: Tom Adams (with Alberto Reggiori as backup)
Regrets: Andy Seaborne, Hiroyuki Sato

PROPOSED: to accept
minutes: RDF Data Access WG 19Oct (non-IRC version)
as a true record.

next meeting: Tuesday, October 26, 2004
  scribe volunteer, please?

propose to continue these 7 without discussion:

ACTION KendallC: expose our walking tour data to SPARQL querying clients
 ETA before F2F4
ACTION EricP: find logistics re F2F5 at tech plenary in Boston March
 28 Feb - 4 Mar (2 days).  Some WG preference to Mon/Tue of that week.
 some progress:
ACTION AlbertoR: owns issue 'DESCRIBE'
ACTION SteveH: own (i.e. propose resolution to) disjunction issue
ACTION SteveH: owns issue 'nested optionals'
ACTION DanC: owner of issue 'yes or no questions'
ACTION DaveB: Update the source section 9, add more formal links,
update the examples, try to think about extra constraints as EricP
proposed (SOURCE ?s and ?s only in in SELECT). Look at various
people's source test cases.

changes to the agenda?

2. Web Services Constraints and Capabilities

ACTION EricP: draft UC on overlap between RDF query and web service
constraints with respect to WS-Policy

Was this an action?
"DaveB requested a summary of the WS requirements (e.g. conjunction now,  
disjunction eventually), which Eric agreed to supply."

3. Feedback on the SPARQL design

ACTION Dirk: provide details about DB interfaces, re '?' and '$'

ACTION: PatH review SPARQL def'ns post-publication

definitions for SELECT, projection, substitution [was: [Fwd: Re: ...]]
Dan Connolly (Tuesday, 19 October)

4. PREFIX syntax
cf http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/DataAccess/issues#prefixSyntax

ACTION: DaveB to illustrate prefix interaction details by example/test
and following thread, including a proposal:

1. Remove the second PrefixDecl term from the Query term, so there
is only one place prefixes are defined; before the ReportFormat term.

2. Change FromSelector to only allow URIs. Edit to be ::= QuotedURI
or alternatively, put it inside FromClause, delete FromSelector.

3. Define prefix/URI expansion to happen in the order they are given
in the syntax, with later prefixes overriding earlier ones.

5. Toward adopting some tests

Is this test ready?
i.e. every jot-and-tiddle of

I don't see how the
    rs:size     "2" ;
is a consequence of the spec, for example.

Is this documentation sufficient?

p.s. sorry this is late; W3C AC meeting, TAG duties
got in the way of a timely agenda.

Dan Connolly, W3C http://www.w3.org/People/Connolly/
D3C2 887B 0F92 6005 C541  0875 0F91 96DE 6E52 C29E

Received on Monday, 25 October 2004 18:20:41 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 7 January 2015 15:00:45 UTC