W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-rdf-dawg@w3.org > July to September 2005

agenda: RDF Data Access 30Aug

From: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>
Date: Mon, 29 Aug 2005 11:12:30 -0500
To: RDF Data Access Working Group <public-rdf-dawg@w3.org>
Message-Id: <1125331950.16011.313.camel@dirk>

1. Convene, take roll, review records and agenda

  http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/DataAccess/
  2005-08-30T14:30Z

  tel:+1.617.761.6200 code:7333
  supplementary IRC chat:irc://irc.w3.org:6665/dawg
    log to appear:http://www.w3.org/2005/08/30-dawg-irc

regrets: DaveB
scribe: volunteer, please?

  record for review:
 http://www.w3.org/2005/08/16-dawg-minutes

next meeting: 6 sep. scribe volunteer?

note the following done without discussion:

ACTION: ericP to thank Ivan for his comment
done. http://www.w3.org/mid/20050829081030.GA17752@w3.org

continue the following without discussion:

ACTION: DanC to investigate having CVS commits send to the WG list

comments on agenda?

It was prepared base on...
  http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/DataAccess/lc-status-report.html
  $Revision: 1.19 $ of $Date: 2005/08/29 14:06:22 $

  http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/DataAccess/issues
  v 1.97 2005/08/03 23:04:25


2. comment: Query forms should be resources, not operations
http://www.w3.org/mid/20050802211142.GU18852@markbaker.ca

ACTION: KendallC to write another draft response to Mark Baker's comment
and send to WG for possible discussion


3. comment: SPARQL Protocol: inconsistent parameter names
http://www.w3.org/mid/43130E85.6040707@aduna.biz

I expect the answer is "yes, this is by design" but since we
received it before deciding to go to last call, we need to make
sure it doesn't introduce an open issue.


4. toward protocol last call
 http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/DataAccess/proto-wd/
 as of this writing: 1.63

ACTION: KC to work with WSDL WG on describing POST binding with
application/x-form-encoded in WSDL 2

ACTION: KC to work with WSDL WG on moving "style" from interface to
binding

ACTION: EricP to review protocol document

PROPOSED: that proto-wd 1.63 plus items discussed in this meeting
  addresses all outstanding protocol issues and is suitable for
  publication as a Last Call Working Draft.



5. Protocol testing

ACTION: DanC to extract and machine-check examples

some progress:
SPARQL protocol spec checking: query syntax checking works Dan Connolly
(Friday, 19 August)
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-dawg/2005JulSep/0282.html

"CONSTRUCT with content negotiation" test case... ready to approve?
Has anyone else tried it?



6. a WSDL 1.1 description of the SPARQL protocol

ACTION: LeeF to draft WSDL 1.1 for SPARQL thingy with AndyS and Elias
ETA 2 Sep

still on target for 2 Sep?

ACTION: DanC to ask WSDL WG to review WSDL 1.1 and WSDL 2 SPARQL
protocol stuff, once both are available


7. BASE IRI resolution comment

ACTION: DanC to respond to ericP's "don't normalize" text in rq23
DONE: @@link

ACTION: ericP to send [OK?] message to Bjoern
let's discuss whether we're ready for that now. Hmm... are there
relevant test cases?


8. issues#queryMimeType

ACTION: ericP to update rq23 to include the text of rq23/mime.txt ,
including security concearns

seems done in $Revision: 1.471 $; has anybody taken a look?
http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/DataAccess/rq23/#mediaType


9. grammar update
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-dawg/2005JulSep/0288.html
http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/DataAccess/rq23/#grammar 1.470 (or later)

Let's work on test cases to match the changes, especially...


10. issues#badIRIRef

The 1.470 rq23 editor's draft has an implication on protocol.
Let's discuss whether that's what we want.


11. issues#valueTesting: handling type "error"s

regarding
Bug: "A value disjunction that encounters a type error on only one
branch will return the result of evaluating the other branch."
http://www.w3.org/mid/B27E3100-A366-496F-AC9A-A0E5257C3F80@w3.org

we have...

ACTION: DaveB to make 'XXI'^^:romanNumeral = 21 and points nearby into
test cases (or ask questions in email).

which is done in that it illustrates the issue nicely...
http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/DataAccess/tests/data/ValueTesting/roman.rq
http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/DataAccess/tests/data/ValueTesting/roman.n3
http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/DataAccess/tests/data/ValueTesting/roman-result.n3

now... which way does the answer go? like Dave's test
materials (1 result), or like the LC spec (0 results)?


12. issues#valueTesting : "language tag issues"

http://www.w3.org/mid/431338a1.225522296@smtp.bjoern.hoehrmann.de


13. issues#sort, comment ORDER with IRIs
http://www.w3.org/mid/431b3915.225638015@smtp.bjoern.hoehrmann.de

I lost track... I'd like to establish who has the ball on this.


14. Toward SPARQL CR

request for CR needs
 - documentation that dependencies are discharged
   - we haven't closed the loop with XQuery
 - documentation of outstanding dissent
   - Network Inference's objection to the BRQL strawman
     rather than something XQuery-based is still outstanding.


-- 
Dan Connolly, W3C http://www.w3.org/People/Connolly/
D3C2 887B 0F92 6005 C541  0875 0F91 96DE 6E52 C29E
Received on Monday, 29 August 2005 16:12:35 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 26 March 2013 16:15:24 GMT