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

Agenda, 13 Feb 2007 @ 14:30 UTC

From: Lee Feigenbaum <feigenbl@us.ibm.com>
Date: Sun, 11 Feb 2007 18:15:26 -0500
To: public-rdf-dawg@w3.org
Message-ID: <OF085EEC97.BCCA60CF-ON8525727F.007FBA9C-8525727F.007FC1AD@us.ibm.com>

0. Convene [1]RDF Data Access WG meeting of Tuesday, 13 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: EricP
         + Regrets: 
         + roll call
         + approve 30 Jan minutes [2]
         + approve 06 Feb minutes [3] (not yet up)
         + next meeting 20 Feb., @@ recruit scribe
         + agenda comments?

1. Review ACTION Items

These action appear DONE:

ACTION: Lee to adapt text from 4.1.1 to specify how the protocol can 
contribute to the base IRI for query evaluation as per #relIRIs in the QL 
  [ed: Done in 
and refined in 
We'll discuss this in agendum 'Base IRI'.]

ACTION: LeeF to add Andy's bnode label scope tests to CVS as unapproved 
syntax tests
  [ed: Done in 

ACTION: AndyS to add text clarifying the prohibition on blank node labels 
in multiple BGPs to rq25
  [ed: Text appears in 
http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/DataAccess/rq23/rq25.html#QSynBlankNodes .]

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

ACTION: EricP to run the yacker tool over and annotate the existing tests
ACTION: LeeF to remember that the wee, lost filter tests should be put 
ACTION: Lee to talk to protocol editors re: POSTing 

2. Test suite

I'd like to approve Andy's new syntax tests which reflect our recent 
decision regarding blank node label scope and the extent of basic graph 


...and subsequent corrections in the thread. Please try to come prepared 
to approve these or suggest changes.

3. Base IRI

Last week Eric pointed out that the protocol spec. is silent on its 
contributions towards determining the Base IRI against which relative IRIs 
in a SPARQL query are resolved. I drafted text on this for the protocol 
spec. based on the text in the QL spec. Subsequent mailing list discussion 
with Andy seemed to point to the correct text, which I took a stab at on 
the list. This is mainly a question of properly interpreting RFC 3986 as 
it applies to SPARQL.

My original message:

Updated text proposal:

4. Minimal test suite?

Simon suggested several 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 at the time, 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. In general this is a standing agenda item 
pending time and a good phone connection for Simon.

5. rq25 status

I'd like to discuss our timeline between now and Last Call publication, 
and also discuss which people and what actions are in the critical path 
between now and then.

[1] http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/DataAccess/
[2] http://www.w3.org/2007/01/30-dawg-minutes
[3] http://www.w3.org/2007/02/06-dawg-minutes
Received on Sunday, 11 February 2007 23:15:36 UTC

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