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

Agenda - 31 Jul 2007 @ 14:30 UTC

From: Lee Feigenbaum <lee@thefigtrees.net>
Date: Mon, 30 Jul 2007 13:40:15 -0400
Message-ID: <46AE227F.7060007@thefigtrees.net>
To: 'RDF Data Access Working Group' <public-rdf-dawg@w3.org>

We've got a lot to do in the meeting tomorrow, including tests to 
approve, test coverage / SPARQL features, comments handling, test URIs, 
and the public test service.

I'm hoping to have in place at the end of a meeting a concrete plan 
going forward to get to a point at which we can say "the test suite is 
done" for the purposes of generating our implementation report.

Hope to see you all there.
Lee


0. Convene [1]RDF Data Access WG meeting of Tuesday, 31 July 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:
          + Regrets:
          + roll call
          + minutes from last week [2]
          + next meeting 7 Aug. @@ recruit scribe, regrets?
          + agenda comments?


1. Review ACTION Items

These actions appear DONE:

ACTION: LeeF to mark 10 distinct tests in 
http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/DataAccess/tests/data-r2/distinct/manifest.ttl 
  as approved
ACTION: LeeF to mark type promotion tests approved 
http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/DataAccess/tests/data-r2/type-promotion/manifest.ttl

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

-- misc --

ACTION: ericP to poke IETF folks about registering SPARQL media types 
(esp. application/sparql-query)
ACTION: ericP to write explanatory text saying that, like xsd:inteter 
and xsd:dateTime, the relative order of simple literals and xsd:strings 
is not defined here

-- implementation report --

ACTION: EricP to run the yacker tool over and annotate the existing 
tests to summarize coverage
   [ed: progress here - we'll discuss where we go from here during the 
meeting]
ACTION: ericP & chimezie to see if all the identified algebraic forms 
fit into the XPath-based facet approach
ACTION: ericP to requisition /TR/SPARQL as a switcher document pointing 
to the real specs
ACTION: EliasT to come up with feature list for protocol testing

-- tests --

ACTION: ericP to write a test showing that langMatches doens't do 
extended matching
ACTION: AndyS or LeeF to mark non-SELECT tests using :QueryForm classes, 
and to move those URIs to the qt: namespace
ACTION: Eric+Andy to identify and collect mf:requires URIs and put in 
documentation
ACTION: ericP, AndyS to add the mf:requires labels to the manifest 
namespace document


2. Test suite

AndyS sent out tests for i18n that SteveH passes:
   http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-dawg/2007JulSep/0033.html

...and tests for OFFSET and LIMIT that both SteveH and I pass:

   http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-dawg/2007JulSep/0034.html

...and tests for ASK:

 
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-dawg/2007JulSep/0041.html

Can anyone run the ASK tests? Any other comments on these tests? I'd 
like to approve them, so please look at them before the meeting if you can.


3. Facets and Test Coverage

Andy says: moved everything from old suite.

Progress from EricP.

   http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-dawg/2007JulSep/0039.html

But more up-to-date is:

   http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/DataAccess/tests/facets-coverage

Let's look at some of these missing coverage mark and decide

1) syntax only
2) is actually covered
3) not important to test
4) needs test (and action on test)

I'd like to spend time figuring out what's the shortest path from where 
we are today to putting a stamp of approval on the test suite so that we 
can begin seriously encouraging 'final' implementation reports.

I'd also propose ignoring redundancy for now, though I'm happy to have 
someone add metadata to manifests that indicates redundancy.


4. Test URIs

There was discussion during and after last week's telecon. about what 
the canonical URIs for tests are. (That is, what URIs do we expect in 
EARL results.) Along with this discussion was discussion about content 
neg. and providing RDF/XML versions of all of our Turtle test materials.


5. Test harness?

Let's get an update on the test service for SPARQL endpoints. We've 
already had one request for such a service independent of our work:

   http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-dawg/2007JulSep/0040.html


6. Outstanding -comments messages

We owe responses to some messages on the -comments list. Let's see which 
need discussion and which simply need replies.

EBV of invalid numeric literals
 
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-dawg-comments/2007Jul/0012.html

xs:all vs. xs:sequence
 
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-dawg-comments/2007Jul/0010.html

Any others?


[1] http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/DataAccess/
[2] 
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-dawg/2007JulSep/att-0031/24-dawg-minutes.htm
Received on Monday, 30 July 2007 17:54:35 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 26 March 2013 16:15:37 GMT