W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-rdf-dawg@w3.org > October to December 2006

Agenda, 2 Jan @ 14:30 UTC - the New Year's edition

From: Lee Feigenbaum <feigenbl@us.ibm.com>
Date: Fri, 29 Dec 2006 18:15:44 -0500
To: public-rdf-dawg@w3.org
Message-ID: <OFA0559396.6291B492-ON85257253.007FA5F0-85257253.007FC7F0@us.ibm.com>

A happy New Year to all DAWGs and DAWG-lovers everywhere.

Our agenda to kick off 2007, comments are welcome:

0. Convene [1]RDF Data Access WG meeting of Tuesday, 2 January, 2007 
at 14:30:00 UTC
                 + LeeF chairing
                 + comments on the agenda
         + teleconference bridge: [3]tel:+1.617.761.6200 code:7333
         + SimonR to scribe
         + Regrets: 
         + roll call
         + 12 Dec minutes -- [we'll have a link to approve shortly]
         + 19 Dec minutes [2]
         + next meeting 9 Jan. Recruit scribe.
         + agenda comments?

1. Review ACTION Items

These action are DONE (more on them later):

ACTION: LeeF to pester PatH about entailment text [recorded in 

We'll go through these actions, but I imagine they all CONTINUE: 

ACTION: SimonR to look at .Unit 
ACTION: Souri to review 
http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/DataAccess/rq23/rq24-algebra by 9 Jan 2007 
  [ed: Souri, would you like Fred's review to discharge your action?]
ACTION: ericP to seek clarification on 
ACTION: EricP to sort out some string literal thing for the operator table 
[ed: this action is about text for simple literals and xsd:string and text 
for RDFterm-equal] 
ACTION: KendallC to close formsOfDistinct issue 
ACTION: KendallC to remember that the wee, lost filter tests should be put 

ACTION: PatH to change the entailment section around to talk about SPARQL 
first, then more general conditions in a normative appendix 

2. Test suite process

Classifying tests (EricP)

Reporting test results (EricP)

3. rq24 algebra

FredZ's review of rq24-algebra:

Can we find a volunteer to write text for an example of applying the 
specification to an actual query pattern?

4. Status of blank node / cardinality issue

We approved this test case:


...at the end of November. Is this spec. text that needs to get added 
within PatH's entailment text?

(The chair does not want to see this issue get forgotten; I suspect there 
is not much actual discussion needed on this agendum.)

5. Issue: punctuationSyntax

or: should we have commas in the SELECT list and/or ORDER BY list?

Consensus appeared to begin to emerge in this thread:

The chair would like to put this to the question on 2-Jan, and at the 
latest on 9-Jan.

[1] http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/DataAccess/
[2] http://www.w3.org/2006/12/19-dawg-minutes
[3] tel:+1.617.761.6200
[4] irc://irc.w3.org:6665/dawg

Received on Friday, 29 December 2006 23:17:11 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 7 January 2015 15:00:52 UTC