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

Agenda - 20 Feb. 2007 @ 14:30 UTC

From: Lee Feigenbaum <feigenbl@us.ibm.com>
Date: Mon, 19 Feb 2007 18:56:19 -0500
To: public-rdf-dawg@w3.org
Message-ID: <OFD81BD5E9.D1FAE797-ON85257287.00836794-85257287.00837FEF@us.ibm.com>

Most of our business this week relates to the test suite. We continue to 
progress towards Last Call, and we'll spend a bit of time talking about 
how to get there from where we are now.


0. Convene [1]RDF Data Access WG meeting of Tuesday, 20 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: @@ (Elias had volunteered but then sent regrets)
         + Regrets: Souri, EliasT
         + roll call
         + approve 13 Feb minutes [2]
         + next meeting 27 Feb., @@ recruit scribe
         + agenda comments?

1. Review ACTION Items

These action appear DONE:

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: Elias to add wording for PROPOSED: ed(The SPARLQ Protocol does not 
derefrence query URIs so 5.1.3 does not apply. Per 5.1.4, services must 
define their own base URI, which may be the service invocation URI.)
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

Jeen moved some query evaluation tests to the new testing environment...

...and Andy corrected a typo and reports that ARQ passes the tests.

Please try to take a look at these tests in advance so that we can approve 

Eric proposed a syntax test similar to what we approved last week to note 
that OPTIONAL clauses break up BGPs. He also suggested similar tests for 
the GRAPH keyword.

I'd like to also discuss and approve these tests if possible.

3. rq25 status and reviews

We've made more progress on reviews and responses to reviews this week:

  + Souri on placement of '.' in SPARQL queries:
  + AndyS incorporates Simon's first batch of feedback:

4. protocol status

The protocol document has not changed much since our previous last calls. 
Does anyone want to do a review of it prior to publishing a LC draft?

5. Road to Last Call

What does our schedule look like from here? Perhaps we can pencil in a 
date on which we hope to make a decision to publish last call drafts?

6. 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.

[1] http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/DataAccess/
[2] http://www.w3.org/2007/02/13-dawg-minutes
Received on Monday, 19 February 2007 23:56:30 UTC

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