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

Re: Minutes of 2004-11-23 teleconference for review

From: Eric Prud'hommeaux <eric@w3.org>
Date: Wed, 24 Nov 2004 02:52:47 +0900
To: "Seaborne, Andy" <andy.seaborne@hp.com>
Cc: RDF Data Access Working Group <public-rdf-dawg@w3.org>
Message-ID: <20041123175247.GB25552@unagi.w3.org>

One correction to what *I* had said during the meeting:
Where I said "subcommittee", I was thinking "task force".

sorry for any confusion this caused.

On Tue, Nov 23, 2004 at 05:38:09PM -0000, Seaborne, Andy wrote:
> 
> 
>     RDF Data Access Working Group
>     http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/DataAccess/
>     Tuesday 2004-11-23 9:30am-11:30am/14:30-16:30 UTC
>     log: http://www.w3.org/2004/11/23-dawg-irc
> 
> Agenda:
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-dawg/2004OctDec/0328.html
> 
> chair: EricP
> scribe: AndyS
> 
> 1. Convene, take roll, review agenda
> 
> Attending: 
>     Kendall Clark
>     Andy Seaborne
>     Yoshio Fukushige
>     Eric Prud'hommeaux
>     Simon Raboczi
>     Steve Harris
>     Janne Saarela
>     Pat Hayes
>     Kevin Wilkinson
>     Jos De Roo (IRC only)
> 
> regrets:
>     Alberto Reggiori
>     Dan Connolly
>     Dave Beckett
>     Howard Katz
>     Tom Adams
> 
> regrets for 30 Nov (from advanced notifications)
>      Dan Connolly, Dave Beckett, Howard Katz, Alberto Reggiori, Steve
> Harris
> 
> Next meeting: 30 Nov 2004 / scribe: Janne (if IRC working)
> 
> 
> PROPOSE: to accept as a true record of the last meeting:
>  
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-dawg/2004OctDec/0322.html
> RESOLVED without opposition to accept as a true record.
> 
> Continued without discussion:
> 
> ACTION DanC: owner of issue 'yes or no questions' (pending protocol doc)
> ACTION AlbertoR: owns issue 'DESCRIBE'
>   The message:
>  
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-dawg/2004OctDec/0343.html
>   was noted as "work in progress".
> 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.
> ACTION SteveH: own (i.e. propose resolution to) disjunction issue
> ACTION SteveH: owns issue 'nested optionals'
> 
> ACTION DanC: notify SemWeb CG of EbXML possible sync point in April
> DONE
>   note: http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/DataAccess/#schedCR
> 
> 2. FTF 4
> 
> 19-20 January 2005 Espoo, Finland (Hosted by Profium)
>  
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-dawg/2004OctDec/0211.html
> dress warmly!
> 
> Currently 12 have said they will attend.  Pat Hayes is seeking funding
> to attend.
> 
> People who have not indicated whether they will be attending should
> register, even if it is to say they will not be there.
> 
> 
> 3. Test Cases
> 
> EricP has updated http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/DataAccess/tests/README to
> define a test passing by the text:
> 
> """
> A test passes if the graph from the action is logically equivalent
> to the graph named in the result. "Logical equivalence" can be tested
> by eliminating redundant bNodes in both graphs and testing if the graphs
> are isomorphic: same shape, same labels.
> """
> 
> 
> ACTION: SteveH is willing to adapt his testing infrastructure to  
> generate input/output RDF/XML and typed nodes into manifest file
>   What degree of commitment does "willing" imply?
> CONTINUED
> 
> There was a discussion about URIs in the test data and the manifests.
> Currently, the manifest files have things like (from simple/manifest.n3)
> 
> ...
>         mf:action
>             [ qt:query  <dawg-tp-01.rq> ;
>               qt:data   <data-01.n3> ] ;
>         mf:result  <result-tp-01.n3>
> ...
> that is, relative URIs with relative paths.
> 
> 
> ACTION EricP: to resolve relative URIs in RDF/XML (for test manifests)
> 
> EricP then suggested a process for accelerating test acceptance.  He
> noted that tests were being developed and checked by the implementers
> themselves and this was not gaining wider group buy-in.  He suggested
> splitting test acceptance into a detailed checking by a small group who
> then could pass sets of tests to the WG for acceptance, thus reducing
> the need for everyone to have to read in detail every test while under
> development.  The small group would be EricP, AndyS, JosD, SteveH.
> 
> ACTION ericP: to ask DanC and DaveB to join
> 
> 
> 4. Protocol
> 
> Kendall has two drafts:
> http://monkeyfist.com/kendall/sparql-protocol/
> http://monkeyfist.com/kendall/sparql-protocol-simplex/
> 
> The second document was produced by removing material from the first
> one: there is no discovery and no update operations.
> 
> A straw poll on Kendall's question:
>    Which of the two drafts to go forward on
> 
> yielded:
> + Eric, Andy, Steve, Pat, Yoshio for simpler one
> + Janne wants to see an eventual full version
> 
> Kendall said he would go forward with the simplex version (query,
> getGraph) and that the onus was on people to argue other operations into
> the spec.
> 
> ACTION KendallC: expose our walking tour data to SPARQL querying clients
>   ETA before F2F4
> CONTINUED
> 
> ACTION TomA: read the protocol draft [protocol] and email a review to
> the WG before the next telcon 2004-11-09
> DONE
>   see
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-dawg/2004OctDec/0323.html
> 
> 
> 5. SPARQL SOURCE Issue
> 
> The message on the comments list was noted:
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-dawg-comments/2004Nov/002
> 0.html
> 
> 
> ACTION JanneS: review
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-dawg/2004OctDec/0256.html
> and check what happens when no source support is implemented
> 
> ACTION DaveB: update the dawg test repository to record or amend
> tests to correspond to the
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-dawg/2004OctDec/0241.html
> proposal
> CONTINUED
> 
> ACTION DanC: suggest formal definitions for SOURCE
> CONTINUED
> 
> 
> 6. SPARQL update, issues
> 
> See http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/DataAccess/rq23/
> 
> The current status (v1.139) is that sections 1-6 are drafted, sec 7
> (UNSAID) is empty, sections 8 and 9 (FROM and SOURCE) now have text, sec
> 10 (Result Forms) drafted but not merged with text from Alberto's
> message.  Sec 12 (list of constraint functions and the extensibility) is
> not done.  The grammar has not been worked on recently.
> 
> ACTION PatH review SPARQL def'ns post-publication
> CONTINUED
> 
> Last time, there was a detailed review cycle.  To make time for this,
> reviewing can start now on sec 1-6 and 10.  Asking for reviewers, the
> following offered:
>   PatH, SteveH (no time at the moment), KevinW, Yoshio (except time
> issues).
> 
> ACTION: PatH to review editors working draft of rq23
> 
> ACTION: KevinW to review editors working draft of rq23
> 
> Meeting closed at 15:26 UTC

-- 
-eric

office: +1.617.258.5741 NE43-344, MIT, Cambridge, MA 02144 USA
cell:   +1.857.222.5741

(eric@w3.org)
Feel free to forward this message to any list for any purpose other than
email address distribution.
Received on Tuesday, 23 November 2004 17:52:04 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 26 March 2013 16:15:21 GMT