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

Agenda - 27 Feb @ 14:30 UTC

From: Lee Feigenbaum <feigenbl@us.ibm.com>
Date: Sun, 25 Feb 2007 17:51:49 -0500
To: public-rdf-dawg@w3.org
Message-ID: <OF1C13075B.5449D44E-ON8525728D.007CFF77-8525728D.007D97DF@us.ibm.com>

Hi Everyone,

Reviews continue to roll in and Eric and Andy progress towards a Last Call 
document. I'm hoping to decide on the ORDER BY questions raised this past 
week and lay out a schedule to Last Call in the coming weeks. Please try 
to attend if you can!

Lee


0. Convene [1]RDF Data Access WG meeting of Tuesday, 27 February, 2007 
at 14:30:00 UTC
         + LeeF chairing
         + teleconference bridge: tel:+1.617.761.6200 
tel:+33.4.89.06.34.99 tel:+44.117.370.6152 code:7333
         + on irc at: irc://irc.w3.org:6665/dawg
         + Scribe: EliasT
         + Regrets: Souri
         + roll call
         + approve 13 Feb minutes [2]
         + approve 20 Feb minutes [3]
         + next meeting 6 Mar., @@ recruit scribe
         + agenda comments?


1. Review ACTION Items

These action appear DONE:

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: Lee to talk to protocol editors re: POSTing 
application/sparql-query

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: 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 


2. Test suite

Jeen moved some query evaluation tests to the new testing environment...
  http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-dawg/2007JanMar/0080.html

...and Andy corrected a typo and reports that ARQ passes the tests.
  http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-dawg/2007JanMar/0081.html

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

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.
  http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-dawg/2007JanMar/0079.html

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


3. ORDER BY, language tags, and unknown types

Andy distilled a discussion from the -comments list here:
  -> 
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-dawg/2007JanMar/0098.html

Richard Newman suggests that the main thing missing is clarification text 
on the behavior of ORDER BY in the specification and an appropriate test 
case, and supplies a suggested test:

  -> 
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-dawg/2007JanMar/0099.html

I'm reproducing the test here to facilitate discussion during the telecon:

data:

@prefix : <http://example.com/> .
:x :p 
 "5"^^<http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema#integer> ,
 "abc" ,
 "xyz" ,
 "xyz"@en ,
 "xyz"@fr ,
 "xyz"^^<http://example.com/datatype/one> ,
 "xyz"^^<http://example.com/datatype/two> ,
 "xyz"^^<http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema#string> ,
 "zzz" ,
 "zzz"@en ,
 "zzz"@fr .


query:

PREFIX : <http://example.com/>
SELECT ?o WHERE {
  :x :p ?o .
}
ORDER BY ?o


...Richard suggests that the correct response order may be the order that 
I've listed the literals in the data above. I'd like to discuss this and 
determine the group's intentions such that we may clarify the 
specification and approve a suitable test case.


4. rq25 status and reviews

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

  + Souri on placement of '.' in SPARQL queries:
 http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-dawg/2007JanMar/0088.html
  + AndyS incorporates Simon's first batch of feedback:
 http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-dawg/2007JanMar/0086.html
 


5. protocol status

Elias is looking into the WSDL ramifications of supporting 
application/sparql-query as an input serialization for the protocol. Not 
sure if there's anything to discuss here this week.


6. 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?



[1] http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/DataAccess/
[2] http://www.w3.org/2007/02/13-dawg-minutes
[3] http://www.w3.org/2007/02/20-dawg-minutes
Received on Sunday, 25 February 2007 22:52:04 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 26 March 2013 16:15:36 GMT