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

Agenda, 6 Feb @ 14:30 UTC

From: Lee Feigenbaum <feigenbl@us.ibm.com>
Date: Sun, 4 Feb 2007 16:48:04 -0500
To: public-rdf-dawg@w3.org
Message-ID: <OF4BD2B829.BA34C214-ON85257278.00778F1E-85257278.0077C17F@us.ibm.com>

I want to encourage working group members to continue with their reviews 
of rq25 so that we can publish a Last Call draft within a week or two.


0. Convene [1]RDF Data Access WG meeting of Tuesday, 6 February, 2007 
at 14:30:00 UTC
         + LeeF chairing
         + teleconference bridge: tel:+1.617.761.6200 
tel:+ tel:+44.117.370.6152 code:7333
         + on irc at: irc://irc.w3.org:6665/dawg
         + Scribe: SimonR
         + Regrets: EliasT
         + roll call
         + 30 Jan minutes (draft at [2], final will appear there soon) to 
         + next meeting 13 Feb., @@ recruit scribe
         + agenda comments?

1. Review ACTION Items

These action are DONE:

ACTION: AndyS to reply to Bob M noting changes in examples in curent 

Let's check on the status of the following actions:

ACTION: AndyS to add text clarifying the prohibition on blank node labels 
in multiple BGPs to rq25
ACTION: AndyS to clarify the extent of BGPs is not broken up by FILTER 
clauses and to change production rule name in the grammar
ACTION: EricP to run the yacker tool over and annotate the existing tests
ACTION: Jeen to mark approved tests as dawg:approved
ACTION: LeeF to remember that the wee, lost filter tests should be put 

2. Test suite

We have some new syntax tests from Andy reflecting the the blank node 
and BGP extent decisions made last week. Test cases are in:
modified by:

I'd like to approve these, if possible.

3. Minimal test suite?

Simon suggested two weeks ago that:

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.

This was mostly discussed on IRC two weeks ago, and I promised an agenda 
slot to further the discussion last week. I'll keep this around until we 
have a chance to discuss it.

4. rq25 status

I'd like to check on the status of rq25 reviews.

5. protocol status

@@ I'm going to try to dig up the status on the open protocol issues @@ 

[1] http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/DataAccess/
[2] http://www.w3.org/2007/01/30-dawg-minutes
Received on Sunday, 4 February 2007 21:48:22 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 7 January 2015 15:00:53 UTC