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

DAWG Agenda - 6 Nov 2007 @ 14:30 UTC

From: Lee Feigenbaum <lee@thefigtrees.net>
Date: Mon, 05 Nov 2007 01:36:39 -0500
Message-ID: <472EB9F7.3070606@thefigtrees.net>
To: 'RDF Data Access Working Group' <public-rdf-dawg@w3.org>

We're at 14:30 UTC. Find your local time here:

http://www.timeanddate.com/worldclock/fixedtime.html?month=11&day=06&year=2007&hour=14&min=30&sec=0&p1=0

Short agenda, please join if you can.


0. Convene [1]RDF Data Access WG meeting of Tuesday, 6 November 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] (well, two weeks ago)
          + Next meeting is 13 Oct 2007 @@ recruit scribe, regrets?
          + agenda comments?


1. Review ACTION Items

These actions appear DONE:

ACTION: EricP to draft documents into /2007/SPARQL with namespace 
changes etc. for review next week

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

2. REDUCED tests

As part of our PR transition call, we agreed to create REDUCED tests for 
the test suite, publish them, and solicit implementation results during 
PR. I imagine that one syntax test and one or two evaluation tests will 
suffice. The syntax test is straightforward, but the evaluation tests 
require one of three possiblities that I see:

  + flag the test in the manifest as qt:laxCardinality (or other term). 
This indicates that an implementation passes the test if it has the 
right results, but the cardinality of each result can be between 1 and 
the cardinality in the given result set (inclusive)
  + associate the test in the manifest with multiple result files. This 
indicates that an implementation passes the test if its results match 
any of the given result files
  + create multiple tests. Expect that an implementation passes exactly 
one of them.

The third possibility is nice because implementors do not need to change 
their test harness at all. (We just need logic in the goo that generates 
the implementation report to look out for these tests). It's not nice 
because it means that no one will ever get 100% on the approved tests 
(nor would we expect them to).

The first and second solutions require implementors to adapt their test 
harnesses a bit. For the first one, a test harness needs to detect the 
qt:laxCardinality predicate and adapt their result-checking procedure 
accordingly. For the second one, the result-checking procedure stays the 
same, but the implementation needs to know to check against multiple 
result files and pass the test if they match any of those result files.

Thoughts?


3. Implementation report going forward

I'd like to keep it updated for at least the coming few months, but this 
needn't take Working Group time. Is anyone else interested in helping 
keep the implementation report up-to-date and improving its quality?


4. Testimonials

A reminder to begin gathering SPARQL testimonials.


5. RDF-RDB Workshop

One and a half weeks ago was a W3C workshop on RDF access to relational 
databases[3], at which SPARQL made a great showing. Several of us were 
there, but several weren't. Perhaps we could have a brief update on the 
workshop, and also a note in particular about Matt Gheen's presentation 
regarding using the DAWG test suite against a relational database.



...I'm sure there was one other topic, but for the life of me I can't 
remember what it was nor find it in my notes. Alas (and alack).







[1] http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/DataAccess/
[2] http://www.w3.org/2007/10/23-dawg-minutes.html
[3] http://www.w3.org/2007/03/RdfRDB/program
Received on Monday, 5 November 2007 06:37:00 GMT

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