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

Re: agenda: RDF Data Access 2 Nov (in progress; suggestions?)

From: <jos.deroo@agfa.com>
Date: Tue, 2 Nov 2004 16:49:48 +0100
To: connolly@w3.org
Cc: RDF Data Access Working Group <public-rdf-dawg@w3.org>, public-rdf-dawg-request@w3.org
Message-ID: <OF90451002.81A48057-ONC1256F40.0056ACC6-C1256F40.00570D58@agfa.com>
regrets - very sorry, but I didn't notice the 14:30 UTC and called at the 
old time

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

Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>
Sent by: public-rdf-dawg-request@w3.org
01/11/2004 15:24

        To:     RDF Data Access Working Group <public-rdf-dawg@w3.org>
        cc:     (bcc: Jos De_Roo/AMDUS/MOR/Agfa-NV/BE/BAYER)
        Subject:        agenda: RDF Data Access 2 Nov (in progress; suggestions?)

1. Convene, take roll, review record and agenda

RDF Data Access Working Group
Tuesday 2004-11-02 09:30am-11:30am/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/2004/11/02-dawg-irc

roll call
Scribe: Alberto Reggiori
Regrets: ??

I'm told minutes based on
are in preparation.

next meeting: Tuesday, November 9, 2004
scribe volunteer, please?

propose to continue these 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:

I haven't seen any progress on any of these actions. Any
suggestions on what we should discuss in tomorrow's
telcon? (if you reply with substantive technical input
on any of the actions below, CHANGE THE SUBJECT, please).

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' (pending protocol doc)
ACTION KendallC: write a protocol document draft
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.
ACTION: PatH review SPARQL def'ns post-publication
ACTION: Eric to ask Kendall to put X509 policy use case into UC&R
ACTION SteveH: take rs:size out of expected results from all tests
ACTION EricP: supply definitions for SELECT (vars ordered or not?) ala

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

Received on Tuesday, 2 November 2004 15:50:26 UTC

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