W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-rdf-dawg@w3.org > January to March 2007

meeting records for 16 and 23 Jan 2007

From: Eric Prud'hommeaux <eric@w3.org>
Date: Thu, 25 Jan 2007 10:49:20 +0100
To: public-rdf-dawg@w3.org
Cc: Lee Feigenbaum <feigenbl@us.ibm.com>
Message-ID: <20070125094920.GQ5137@w3.org>
Minutes from the
  16th: http://www.w3.org/2007/01/16-dawg-minutes
  23rd: http://www.w3.org/2007/01/23-dawg-minutes
updated. Text version of the 23rd follows:


W3C

RDF DAWG Weekly

23 Jan 2007

Agenda

See also: IRC log

Attendees

Present
    LeeF, SimonR, AndyS, jeen, PatH, ericP, Orri_Erling
Regrets
    EliasT, Souri, iv_an_ru_
Chair
    LeeF
Scribe
    LeeF (with help from Simon and Eric)

Contents

  • Topics
     1. rq25 status
     2. Convene
     3. Review ACTION Items
     4. Test suite - syntax tests
     5. #dawg Data Access Working Group weekly telecon -- agenda: http://
        lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-dawg/2007JanMar/0035
     6. rq25 status
     7. Bob MacGregor's reply
  • Summary of Action Items

━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━

Convene

<SimonR> I'll preemptively volunteer for Feb 6, though.

Meet next: 30 Jan, PatH to scribe

Orri: Orri of OpenLink Software

<SimonR> Orri's intro: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-dawg/
2007JanMar/0037.html

Orri: background in AI and databases; main author of SQL and core functionality
of Virtuoso database

Orri: sees RDF as the lingua franca for data integration on the Net and
enterprise

Review ACTION Items

<scribe> ACTION: Jeen to do further cosmetic rearranging of SyntaxDev tests and
then commit them to CVS [DONE] [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2007/01/
23-dawg-minutes.html#action01]

<scribe> ACTION: LeeF to check if SteveH can eyeball Jeen's first group of
tests pre-WG approval (LeeF and iv_an_ru will also try to eyeball) [DONE]
[recorded in http://www.w3.org/2007/01/23-dawg-minutes.html#action02]

<scribe> ACTION: LeeF to seek early and later reviewers of rq25 [DONE]
[recorded in http://www.w3.org/2007/01/23-dawg-minutes.html#action03]

<scribe> ACTION: EricP to run the yacker tool over and annotate the existing
tests [CONTINUES] [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2007/01/23-dawg-minutes.html#
action04]

<scribe> ACTION: LeeF to remember that the wee, lost filter tests should be put
[CONTINUES] [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2007/01/23-dawg-minutes.html#
action05]

Test suite - syntax tests

Jeen's messages -> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-dawg/
2007JanMar/0026.html

<jeen> test suite reorg -> http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/DataAccess/tests/data-r2/

LeeF: Ran the syntax tests -- failures were either from unknown functions or
Unicode escape problems (\u)
... eyeballed problem tests and were convinced that problems were with
implementation and not tests

Jeen: Similar for Sesame parser -- failing tests seemed to be OK tests but
implementation problems
... one issue I ran into was with the resolution relative URIs

<scribe> Scribe: LeeF

Jeen: our parser does not have a functionality for dealing with queries from an
embedded entity so it does not handle base URIs set from outside the query

<ericP> eek!

<SimonR> So, the test is *requiring* local IRI support to pass.

<AndyS> http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/DataAccess/rq23/rq25.html#iriRefs

ericP: could we change the tests to not test that particular issue [relative
URI resolution]?

<SimonR> Jeen: Including a BASE clause in the test would fix it.

jeen: as far as I'm concerned, adding a base URI would fix it

AndyS: queries already have a notion of a base as they're named by URI

<AndyS> rel URI is part of the grammar as noted above

AndyS: resoltuion of relative URIs *is* parse related

<ericP> PROPOSAL: not test anything hard

<AndyS> Opposed.

SELECT ?s ?p ?o { ?s ?p ?o }

<jeen> http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/DataAccess/tests/data-r2/syntax-sparql2/
syntax-general-01.rq

jeen: what if we added a specific parser test for relative URIs, and did not
use them (or used them with a BASE clause) in the rest of the syntax tests?

<patH> Gicves DAWG a new meaning

<SimonR> EricP, it's an issue of being able to set up a standard test
environment, when part of the environment is the location you're testing in.
O_o

<AndyS> AndyS: the syntax-general* tests are about RDF termsand this is one
feature for that.

<SimonR> Just adding BASE clauses means the non-BASE codepath doesn't get
tested... :/

ericP: what if we have some queries whose only purpose is to test relative URIs
with no BASE clause (and add BASEs to the rest) ?

jeen: Perhaps these queries are actually designed to test this particular
feature

<AndyS> s/syntax-general/syntax-terms/g ???

<AndyS> syntax-function-01.rq

<SimonR> LeeF: Inquires whether the "unknown function" situation is related to
this issue?

<jeen> http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/DataAccess/tests/data-r2/syntax-sparql2/
syntax-function-01.rq

AndyS: No guarantee of any functions that exist

ericP: We could make one up for tests and let people know that

AndyS: I think that q:name - http://example.org/name - is the only one we use

ericP: If we changed this to w3.org/.... we could put a resolvable document
there

AndyS: I'd like to have a syntax test for zero arguments, one argument, two
arguments, ...

<ericP> echo concat | tr A-Za-z N-ZA-Mn-za-m

<ericP> pbapng

<patH> I have to leave for about 5 mins. Back soon.

<patH> Back now.

-> http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/DataAccess/tests/data-r2/syntax-sparql3/
bnodes-missing-pvalues-01.rq

<AndyS> revision 1.1

<AndyS> date: 2005/06/30

<AndyS> ARQ passes 181 syntax tests.

PROPOSED: To approve the syntax tests referenced by http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/
DataAccess/tests/data-r2/manifest-syntax.ttl conditional on renaming all
negative tests to include -bad-

RESOLVED

<scribe> ACTION: Jeen to mark approved tests as dawg:approved [recorded in
http://www.w3.org/2007/01/23-dawg-minutes.html#action06]

<SimonR> No objection to skipping ahead to item 6.

rq25 status

<SimonR> LeeF: Souri, Orri and SteveH have agreed to do an early review of rq25
(~this week or next)

<SimonR> LeeF: Simon and Kendall have agreed to do later reviews.

<ericP> ericP's issues from rq25

<SimonR> EricP: Has noted various things during an editor's pass over rq25

<ericP> WHERE { _:who foaf:mboxMD5 "A2BA23432B434443D45DF655A6C6E6E";

<ericP> foaf:nick ?nick

<ericP> OPTIONAL { _:who foaf:mbox ?mbox } }

ericP: I think that this query is confusing with _:who acting as a different
blank node in two different BGPs

AndyS: We need this for extension - for instance, sending BGP components off to
a DL reasoner treating it as an existential
... If it were a named variable, you'd be obliged to come back with a binding
for it

patH: I think that's an implementation issue -- if we specify that the blank
node is the same, they'll need to keep track

<SimonR> I think a better way to think of _:who is as a "blank variable" -- the
only difference between it and a "named" variable is that we're obliged to
project it away. (Not sure what the impact on cardinality is, off the top of my
head.)

LeeF: Where do people lean on bnode scope?

<patH> me too

SimonR: look like blank nodes, but act like variables (this is what we worked
through in November)

jeen: +1 Simon. Would like to check how our implementation handles it.

Orri: My initial reaction is that wherever something is referred to by a name
it should be the same thing, but not familiar with counter arguments

AndyS: We can make it easier; need to respect that blank nodes are different
than query variables - would suggest that it's illegal to use the same bnode
label across graph patterns

<SimonR> AndyS: Suggests making it illegal to reuse bnode labels between BGPs.

<SimonR> PatH: Thinks the bnode ID scope ought to be the "document" boundary.
In fact, thinks that scope should be across BGPs.

patH: i think the scope of the bnode IDs should be the "document" -- i think it
violates RDF design to have bnode id scope smaller than document boundary --
implies that bnode id scope cross BGPs

ericP: Initial thought is that the example in http://lists.w3.org/Archives/
Public/public-rdf-dawg/2007JanMar/0041 is a conundrum query
... andy's suggestion would work - would further differentiate blank nodes,
reserving some space for DL folks to work with them

<SimonR> I think it'd be helpful to rename them as "bvars" to avoid confusion.

ericP: leaning towards they're just variables

<ericP> +1

<SimonR> Proposed and tacitly approved to go into extra time.

<scribe> ACTION: LeeF to look back through minutes and mailing list to
determine if the group has made a past decision on blank node scope [recorded
in http://www.w3.org/2007/01/23-dawg-minutes.html#action07]

<patH> suggest distinguish two issues: DL folk insist (correctly) that bnodes
are not the same as unnamed variables (issue 1); but the scope of bnodes across
parts of a query seems klike a different issue.

<patH> klike/like

<SimonR> LeeF: Thinks consensus seems to be forming around treating bnode IDs
as scoped to the query. Would like Kendall's thoughts particularly for DL
input.

<SimonR> LeeF: Will definitely put this on next week's agenda.

<SimonR> AndyS: Worried about reopening a previous decision that BGPs were the
unit of entailment.

AndyS: Changing this would undo the principle of the LC1 decision to make the
BGP the extension point

<scribe> ACTION: AndyS to reply to http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/
public-rdf-dawg/2007JanMar/0041 mentioning the possibility of banning the same
bnode id from appearing in multiple BGPs in a query [recorded in http://
www.w3.org/2007/01/23-dawg-minutes.html#action08]

-> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-dawg/2007JanMar/0041

<ericP> 7 Matching Alternatives

<ericP> Query results involving a pattern containing GP1 and GP2 will

<ericP> include separate solutions for each match where GP1 and GP2 give

<ericP> rise to *different* sets of bindings.

AndyS: The algebra says that SELECT * { {?s ?p ?o } UNION {?s ?p ?o}} will hae
duplicate solutions

Bob MacGregor's reply

AndyS: His examples will change when the algebra come along - what should we do
about that?

<AndyS> { FILTER(?x) } will be a change

<scribe> ACTION: AndyS to reply to Bob M noting changes in examples in curent
algebra [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2007/01/23-dawg-minutes.html#action09]

<SimonR> Adjourned at 15:50 Z.

<AndyS> The modified test names work for me.

Summary of Action Items

[NEW] ACTION: AndyS to reply to Bob M noting changes in examples in curent
algebra [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2007/01/23-dawg-minutes.html#action09]
[NEW] ACTION: AndyS to reply to http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/
public-rdf-dawg/2007JanMar/0041 mentioning the possibility of banning the same
bnode id from appearing in multiple BGPs in a query [recorded in http://
www.w3.org/2007/01/23-dawg-minutes.html#action08]
[NEW] ACTION: EricP to run the yacker tool over and annotate the existing tests
[recorded in http://www.w3.org/2007/01/23-dawg-minutes.html#action04]
[NEW] ACTION: Jeen to mark approved tests as dawg:approved [recorded in http://
www.w3.org/2007/01/23-dawg-minutes.html#action06]
[NEW] ACTION: LeeF to look back through minutes and mailing list to determine
if the group has made a past decision on blank node scope [recorded in http://
www.w3.org/2007/01/23-dawg-minutes.html#action07]
 
[PENDING] ACTION: LeeF to remember that the wee, lost filter tests should be
put [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2007/01/23-dawg-minutes.html#action05]
 
[DONE] ACTION: Jeen to do further cosmetic rearranging of SyntaxDev tests and
then commit them to CVS [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2007/01/
23-dawg-minutes.html#action01]
[DONE] ACTION: LeeF to check if SteveH can eyeball Jeen's first group of tests
pre-WG approval (LeeF and iv_an_ru will also try to eyeball) [recorded in http:
//www.w3.org/2007/01/23-dawg-minutes.html#action02]
[DONE] ACTION: LeeF to seek early and later reviewers of rq25 [recorded in
http://www.w3.org/2007/01/23-dawg-minutes.html#action03]
 
[End of minutes]
━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━

Minutes formatted by David Booth's scribe.perl version 1.127 (CVS log)
$Date: 2007/01/23 15:52:11 $

W3C

RDF DAWG Weekly

16 Jan 2007

Agenda

See also: IRC log

Attendees

Present
    LeeF, SimonR, Souri, ericP, AndyS, jeen, iv_an_ru
Regrets
    PatH, EliasT
Chair
    LeeF
Scribe
    Souri, ericP

Contents

  • Topics
     1. Review ACTION Items
     2. Test suite
     3. rq25 status
  • Summary of Action Items

━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━

 

 

<LeeF> Minutes from 9 Jan: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-dawg/
2007JanMar/att-0018/09-dawg-minutes.html

<SimonR> I'll second the minutes.

<LeeF> APPROVED

<SimonR> Souri: volunteers to scribe next week.

<LeeF> Meet next 23 Jan

Lee approved the minutes (Simon seconded.).

Review ACTION Items

<LeeF> ACTION: PatH to change the entailment section around to talk about
SPARQL first, then more general conditions in a normative appendix [DONE]
[recorded in http://www.w3.org/2007/01/16-dawg-minutes.html#action01]

<SimonR> The second paragraph of Pat's new entailment text seems (to my
reading) to have two distinct topics called "instance mapping". I'd pursue it
further if Pat was actually here, but it doesn't seem to make much sense to ask
for an explanation until he's available. :)

<LeeF> ACTION: EricP to run the yacker tool over and annotate the existing
tests [CONTINUES] [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2007/01/16-dawg-minutes.html#
action02]

<LeeF> ACTION: LeeF to remember that the wee, lost filter tests should be put
[recorded in http://www.w3.org/2007/01/16-dawg-minutes.html#action03]

<AndyS> Simon - Pat is good at replying to email.

<LeeF> CONTINUES

<SimonR> AndyS - Okay, I'll do that.

<LeeF> ACTION: LeeF to check if SteveH can eyeball Jeen's first group of tests
pre-WG approval (LeeF and iv_an_ru will also try to eyeball) [CONTINUES]
[recorded in http://www.w3.org/2007/01/16-dawg-minutes.html#action04]

Test suite

<scribe> log: coninued action item: ACTION: EricP to run the yacker tool over
and annotate the existing tests

Jeen: How do we go about approving the tests?

Lee: Approve all the syntax tests at the same time.

<ericP> are syntax-bnodes-0{3,4}.rq negative tests?

<ericP> are there any others?

<LeeF> Those are them (right now), Eric.

<AndyS> Those are the only negative ones I can find.

<LeeF> ericP: classification tool will work better if negative tests are
isolated from positive tests

I think we should separate +ve and -ve syntax tests.

<AndyS> Souri - They are marked as +ve or -ve in the manifest.

<SimonR> EricP, can you just do a SPARQL query of the manifest to get yourself
a list of the negative syntax tests, or would that be too circular for comfort?
:)

<ericP> syntax-son-of-the-return-the-revenge-of-SPARQL2-strikes-back

<iv_an_ru> The separation is not technically needed for me but it will prevent
us from discussion whether X is positive or negative. Two dirs are
self-explainatory :)

<ericP> SimonR, actually, i could have algae invoke the yacker tool

<SimonR> Kurt Godel: "I am your father." DAWG: "Noooooo!"

<AndyS> If we are arranging tests by kind, (good/bad syntax) shouldn't we do
that for all tests?

<LeeF> ACTION: Jeen to do further cosmetic rearranging of SyntaxDev tests and
then commit them to CVS [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2007/01/
16-dawg-minutes.html#action05]

<ericP> scan of current /syntax/*.rq: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/
public-rdf-dawg/2007JanMar/att-0025/scanTests_syntax

<iv_an_ru> Naming convention instead of separate directories might be enough.

AndyS: Why do we need to separate the +ve and -ve tests?

EricP: It is easier for the tools.

LeeF: Worries whether separating the +ve and -ve tests will complicate Jeen's
task a lot.

Jeen: Thinks it is not a big deal to separate them.

AndyS: Not sure about the structure (?)

<ericP> scribe: ericP

<LeeF>  

LeeF: do we need to re-approve existing tests when moving them to the new
testsuite?

<SimonR> We're reorganizing the tests rather than reapproving them, in my
opinion.

jeen: i think they need eyeballing
... i have eyeballed triple-match/*.rq and they seem to be valid according to
the current spec

<Souri> I agree with Jeen on reapproving the tests to be updated or removed.

jeen: "approval" overhead is that we need to record the meeting log in the
manifests

<SimonR> The issue of approved tests that no longer reflect the current version
of the language is kind of orthogonal -- even if we weren't reorganizing the
tests, we'd have to do that review.

LeeF: we don't need an approval of the triple-match tests

<LeeF> ericP: thinking about process of reporting CR results

<SimonR> It's been suggested before that tests are cheap and there's no reason
not to have lots of them. I'm somewhat inclined to have a "designed" collection
of tests that are a roughly minimal coverage of the features. Those extra tests
reduce the chance of a human ever actually reading them, which is highly
desirable for correctness and understanding.

<LeeF> Simon, are you saying that it's highly desirable for humans to read
them, or for humans not to read them?

<SimonR> LeeF: It's highly desirable for humans to read them.

<SimonR> LeeF: I know what I think of as a "designed" test, rather than just
accumulated test data. :/

<LeeF> Simon: I understand what you're sayiing, but I worry about our ability
to produce a minimal test set which is also (for some definition of the word)
complete.

<AndyS> SimonR: We need to have coverage but I don't see that automatcially
means remove tests we already have. More tests is better coverage , no?

<SimonR> LeeF: I think Eric's feature list gives us a notion of coverage, which
will certainly help. We might look askance at any two tests with an identical
set of features, for instance.

<iv_an_ru> Why not duplicate tests a bit, to have dedicated place for 5-10% of
'must read' tests and big groups of 'boring' tests. Even if readme1st tests are
incomplete, running them will give an overview.

<AndyS> +1 iv_an-ru - I'm keen to help people produce better implementations.
Giving them more tests is a (small) step to doing that.

<SimonR> AndyS: I'm just questioning the idea that more tests actually is
helpful for implementers.

<AndyS> I'm sure the whole test suite will help improve my impls.

<AndyS> more tests = more likely to cover properly :-) I don't believe we have
time to purely design a test suite.

<SimonR> Maybe I'll just stick to IRC for the nonce.

<iv_an_ru> We can't predict whether a given test is totally useless for
everybody so the safe decision is to preserve tests.

<AndyS> My principle is also "least work" for Jeen

LeeF: SimonR, AndyS, iv_an_ru's discussion should go to mail or i'll bring it
up in the meeting next week

rq25 status

<LeeF> current status of rq25:

<LeeF>  

SimonR, re identical set of features, yeah, was gonna add that to the report

[LeeF reads 0023]

LeeF: tx for the work and update, AndyS
... Souri will mail questions about broken links

<iv_an_ru> Ups.

<AndyS> Eric: could you do the initial pub checks (is it quick and easy?) If
"synatx" things are getting in the way of looking at the doc, we can remove
these easily.

<LeeF> thanks, jeen

<jeen> ttyl all

<Zakim> jeen, you wanted to be excused from the meeting (i have another
appointment)

<jeen> sorry to bail out early

LeeF: SimonR, do you have time and desire to review rq25 in the next 2 weeks?

<SimonR> EricP: I'll be free from about the beginning of February; you'd have
to push me to get it earlier than that.

<SimonR> (My audio is cutting in and out, but I can still hear vaguely what's
going on. :P)

<SimonR> O_O

<LeeF> EricP and AndyS: offering to scribe some sections rather than the whole
document is also valuable

ADJOURNED

<SimonR> Adjourned at 15:26 Z.

<LeeF> ACTION: LeeF to seek early and later reviewers of rq25

Summary of Action Items

[NEW] ACTION: Jeen to do further cosmetic rearranging of SyntaxDev tests and
then commit them to CVS [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2007/01/
16-dawg-minutes.html#action05]
[NEW] ACTION: LeeF to seek early and later reviewers of rq25 [recorded in http:
//www.w3.org/2007/01/16-dawg-minutes.html]
 
[PENDING] ACTION: LeeF to remember that the wee, lost filter tests should be
put [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2007/01/16-dawg-minutes.html#action03]
[PENDING] ACTION: EricP to run the yacker tool over and annotate the existing
tests [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2007/01/16-dawg-minutes.html#action02]
[PENDING] ACTION: LeeF to check if SteveH can eyeball Jeen's first group of
tests pre-WG approval (LeeF and iv_an_ru will also try to eyeball) [recorded in
http://www.w3.org/2007/01/16-dawg-minutes.html#action04]
 
[DONE] ACTION: PatH to change the entailment section around to talk about
SPARQL first, then more general conditions in a normative appendix [recorded in
http://www.w3.org/2007/01/16-dawg-minutes.html#action01]
 
[End of minutes]
━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━

Minutes formatted by David Booth's scribe.perl version 1.127 (CVS log)
$Date: 2007/01/16 15:27:09 $


-- 
-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 Thursday, 25 January 2007 09:50:10 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 26 March 2013 16:15:35 GMT