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

Agenda - 6 Mar @ 14:30 UTC

From: Lee Feigenbaum <feigenbl@us.ibm.com>
Date: Mon, 5 Mar 2007 00:39:27 -0500
To: public-rdf-dawg@w3.org
Message-ID: <OF9690D31A.21D11D45-ON85257295.001EE6F2-85257295.001F13B0@us.ibm.com>

(Note that I moved test suite a bit later in the agenda so that we can 
focus on the open questions surrounding rq25 first. We still may cover 
some of the tests that need approval, so if you are interested please try 
out the tests and come prepared to discuss them in addition to the rq25 


0. Convene [1]RDF Data Access WG meeting of Tuesday, 6 March, 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: 
         + roll call
         + approve 20 Feb minutes [2]
         + approve 27 Feb minutes, noting that Jeen sent regrets [3]
         + next meeting 13 Mar., @@ recruit scribe
         + agenda comments?

The US changes to daylight savings time (forward one hour) two weeks early 
this year -- this coming Saturday. So for two teleconferences, the 13th 
and the 20th, either the US members will have the call one hour later 
(10:30 EDT) or the non-US WG members will have the call one hour earlier 
(13:30 UTC). Does anyone have any preference? Do we want to maintain our 
current time (adjusted for daylight savings) from the 27th onwards?

1. Review ACTION Items

These action appear DONE:

ACTION: LeeF to talk to SteveH and JeenB about auto distinct behavior in 
   [See agenda item on DISTINCT below]

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: EricP to add text to spec noting that ORDER BY comparisons may use 
extended implementations of < that operate on types beyond what's given in 
the operator table
ACTION: LeeF to remember that the wee, lost filter tests should be put 
ACTION: LeeF or EliasT to reply to Bjoern regarding (not) POSTing 
application/sparql-query documents

2. Unexpected/auto DISTINCT

Must SPARQL implementations return the exact number of solutions 
prescribed by the algebra?

SteveH's thoughts in favor of allowing auto distinct are here

Let's try to make a decision on this issue.

3. Normative and informative, formal and informal parts of rq25

Kendall's review of rq25:

...raised the question of which parts of rq25 are normative and which are 
informative. Andy replied that in general, numbered sections are normative 
and appendixes are not unless otherwise specified. Andy also indicated the 
need for WG discussion:
(midway through)

4. 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.

5. rq25 status and reviews, last call timing

[1] http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/DataAccess/
Received on Monday, 5 March 2007 05:39:37 UTC

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