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

Agenda - 20 Mar @ 14:30 UTC - Last Call decision

From: Lee Feigenbaum <feigenbl@us.ibm.com>
Date: Sun, 18 Mar 2007 14:12:55 -0400
To: public-rdf-dawg@w3.org
Message-ID: <OFE17CCED7.8D68EF0E-ON852572A2.0063F15F-852572A2.00640EF2@us.ibm.com>

Hi everyone,

Please try to show up at the teleconference on Tuesday if at all possible. 
We'll be addressing our remaining open issues and deciding whether or not 
to move rq25 to Last Call.


Note: The meeting is still at 14:30 UTC. For those of us in the U.S., this 
is 10:30AM EDT and 7:30AM PDT.

0. Convene [1]RDF Data Access WG meeting of Tuesday, 20 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: EliasT
         + Regrets: 
         + roll call
         + approve 13 Mar minutes [2]
         + next meeting 27 Mar., @@ recruit scribe
         + agenda comments?

1. Review ACTION Items

These action appear DONE:

ACTION: ericP to draft text about a LOOSE keyword and run it by w3 folks 
to see if we're abusing the "at risk" mechanism [recorded in 
ACTION: LeeF to seek guidance about at-risk features from the CG [recorded 
in http://www.w3.org/2007/03/13-dawg-irc]
  [ed: We'll discuss these issues in our next agendum]

ACTION: ericP to mark sections 2 and 3 informative, Appendices B and D 
normative in the text and table of contents and 1.1 document outline 
[recorded in http://www.w3.org/2007/03/13-dawg-irc]

ACTION: LeeF to close bnodeRef issue [recorded in 
ACTION: LeeF to close nested optionals issue [recorded in 
ACTION: LeeF to close openWorldValueTesting issue [recorded in 
  [ed: see http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/DataAccess/issues]

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

ACTION: PatH to investigate closing the entailment issue [recorded in 
  [ed: We'll look at this in agendum 3]
ACTION: EricP to run the yacker tool over and annotate the existing tests 
[recorded in http://www.w3.org/2007/03/06-dawg-minutes.html#action03]
ACTION: LeeF or EliasT to reply to Bjoern regarding (not) POSTing 
application/sparql-query documents [recorded in 
ACTION: LeeF to remember that the wee, lost filter tests should be put 
[recorded in http://www.w3.org/2007/03/06-dawg-minutes.html#action05]

2. Duplicate solution cardinality

Last week[3] a straw poll on five possible approaches identified the most 
support for requiring SPARQL SELECT queries without any keyword to return 
the number of duplicate solutions prescribe by the algebra. The straw poll 
also indicated that there was no active opposition to requiring strict 
counting of duplicate solutions but adding a LOOSE keyword that would 
license a cardinality of duplicate solutions between 1 and the number 
prescribed by the algebra.

A second straw poll on these two options showed one opposing voice to each 
option and three favoring voices to each. The chair investigated the 
feasibility/appropriateness of adding a keyword and marking that feature 
of SPARQL at-risk. Advice from Ivan H and Ralph S indicates that this 
would be an appropriate use of the at-risk feature.

I'd like to give a few minutes to find out if there are any changes of 
opinion or new information in this discussion, and, failing that, I will

PROPOSE: SPARQL SELECT queries with no keyword following SELECT must 
return the precise cardinality of duplicate solutions specified by the 
algebra; SPARQL contains a @@ LOOSE keyword that allows duplicate 
solutions to be returned with cardinality of at least 1 and no greater 
than that specified by the algebra. The @@ LOOSE keyword will be marked as 
an at-risk feature of SPARQL.

As per his action, EricP drafted text should the group decide to add a 
keyword for this:

The text there goes along with possible changes to the current DISTINCT 
text that Eric suggests here:

If a proposal (such as this) that includes a new keyword is resolved, we 
will also need to decide on the precise keyword. (Current suggestions 
include LOOSE and INDISTINCT.)

3. issue entailmentFramework

-> http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/DataAccess/issues#entailmentFramework

Pat has an action to ensure that the text in rq25 satisfies the 
entailmentFramework issue. We need to close this issue before we can 
publish a Last Call working draft.

4. Last Call

Barring any unexpected developments int he previous agenda items, I plan 
to propose that we publish rq25 as a Last Call working draft.

@@ I'll have some draft Status of this Document text to look at by the 

5. Test suite

Once we've published Last Call, our attention needs to turn to the test 
suite (and to responding to the community's comments on the draft, of 
course). If we have time on Tuesday, I'd like to return to the latest set 
of tests that appear ready to be approved into the new 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 a few weeks ago 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.

[1] http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/DataAccess/
[2] http://www.w3.org/2007/03/13-dawg-minutes
[3] http://www.w3.org/2007/03/13-dawg-minutes#item02
Received on Sunday, 18 March 2007 18:13:07 UTC

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