W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-rdf-dawg@w3.org > July to September 2012

Re: Regrets. Re: SPARQL TC 2012-09-11

From: Birte Glimm <birte.glimm@uni-ulm.de>
Date: Tue, 11 Sep 2012 15:48:45 +0200
Message-ID: <CABt65OeNkgv3+c98omP4_ess=QhV0sL-hO8wyY1C-Pw+cMLKpQ@mail.gmail.com>
To: Matthew Perry <matthew.perry@oracle.com>
Cc: public-rdf-dawg@w3.org
Hi all,

as I said, I can't participate today (possibly follow via IRC) since
our collaborative research centre is being reevaliated today (whole
day presentations and system demos).

I talked to Kendall, who confirmed that they can provide
implementation reports for the RDF(S) ent. regime with Stardog. Chime
will run the RIF tests and talk to SILK implementtors wheter they can
also provide an implementation report for the RIF regime.

I managed to run all the entailment tests for the OWL Direct Semantics
regime and we currently pass all tests. Jeff Pan also wanted to submit
an implementation report for the Direct Semantics regime and Michael
Scheider is working on OWL's RDF-Based Semantics.

I plan to add more tests in the next days/weeks and will submit a report soon.

Nevertheless, CR seems the only resonable option for now since many
implementors have just started to run the tests and our test suite is
still relatively small.

Regarding the other specs I don't see much harm in going first to CR,
but if others think we have sufficiently many tests and
implementations that ass the tests I am ok with skipping CR.

Birte


On 11 September 2012 15:00, Matthew Perry <matthew.perry@oracle.com> wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> My regrets. I won't be able to make today's meeting.
>
> Thanks,
> Matt
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: andy.seaborne@epimorphics.com
> To: public-rdf-dawg@w3.org
> Sent: Tuesday, September 11, 2012 4:47:05 AM GMT -05:00 US/Canada Eastern
> Subject: Re: SPARQL TC 2012-09-11
>
> (pre meeting inout as we have time constraints)
>
>> I) Wrap up on the last two open comments:
>>
>> JL-4: sandro sent the response, there were still opposing responses by James Leigh http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-dawg-comments/2012Sep/0012.html
>> but Kjetil seems to be ok http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-dawg-comments/2012Sep/0011.html
>> and seems to point out a solution path ( i.e. that possibly the LDPWG could extend our design)
>>
>> My take on it would be that the group decides in the Telco how to go on: I'd suggest that we respond alongthe lines that the behavior that James wants will not make it into this round of the spec, but maybe a future WG or the Linked Data Platform Working Group could take care of it (as Kjetil points out). We could/should put refinements of GSP in these direction on the Future Work Items list and we should be done, I hope.
>
> Agreed - I think Kjetil's point is the key here - the GSP is a
> practical, experience-based solution to managing graph stores.
>
> It is not a general REST interaction protocol.  Indeed, this WG, or a
> future version, isn't obviously the place for that.  LDP is closer, and
> in a UC&R phase, so at least let's encourage James to comment there.
>
> A general theory of REST interaction for RDF needs real-world
> experimentation and deployed experience first - and it's not clear to me
> that it is a W3C thing at all.
>
>> 2)RC-2 (you rersponded) also has still opposing voices from Richard http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-dawg-comments/2012Sep/0008.html <http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-dawg-comments/2012Sep/0008.html>
>>
>> Also here, I think we should find some solution to close the issue. I am not really swapped in here, so, I'd appreciate help/discussion on what other people think.
>
> Reading Richard's last response, I don't quite get it.  The proposal is
> that the spec suggest (non-normatively) that sensible, use specific
> messages are put in the status line (IMHO - correct use of HTTP).  if
> they get mangled, then surely it's a system issue?
>
> The whole issue of internationalization has not been discussed.  Body
> content must pay more attention to this.
>
>> As far as I can tell, these are the only open comments.
>
> I see a few other red ones - if these are not correct, could you (as
> chair) rule on them and mark them done.  We can use the page as evidence
> of responsiveness when going to REC.
>
>> II) Go through documents and resolve to republish as PR/CR where possible. We need to decide which docs can go to PR directly and which ones go to CR . I summarize my impression per document (to be confirmed by editors):
>>
>> * Query: ready for PR (still potentially some more Test cases could help for clarification of corner cases, but I think we have decent coverage)
>
> (just to repeat my view)
>
> Some of my recent comments about tests were prompted because of question
> I have got from people outside the WG wanting to run the tests and
> finding issues.  (e.g. DotNetRdf).
>
> The tests are not a comprehensive verification of correct implementation
> (you'll need your own test as well :-) but they do matter to
> people/systems outside the WG.
>
>         Andy
>
>>
>> * Update: ready for PR
>>
>> * Protocol: ready for PR/CR?
>>
>>     Questions: a) do we have 2 full implementations?
>>                b) pending resolution of RC-2
>>                c) PR vs. CR. pending discussion of Carlos' ACTION-672 cf. http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-dawg/2012JulSep/0164.html <http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-dawg/2012JulSep/0164.html>
>>
>> * Service Description: ready for PR/CR?
>>
>>     Question: do we have 2 full implementations? (otherwise I'd suggest to go for CR)
>>
>> * Entailment: ready for CR
>>      (as confirmed by Birte last time, we won't have enough implementation experience tro go directly to PR here)
>>
>> * Federated Query: ready for PR/CR?
>>
>>     Question: do we have 2 full implementations? (otherwise I'd suggest to go for CR)
>>
>> * Result formats (both JSON+CSV/TSV: ready for PR
>>
>> * Overview: ready for PR (no implementation needed)
>>
>>
>>
>> Best regards,
>> Axel
>>
>
>



-- 
Jun. Prof. Dr. Birte Glimm            Tel.:    +49 731 50 24125
Inst. of Artificial Intelligence         Secr:  +49 731 50 24258
University of Ulm                         Fax:   +49 731 50 24188
D-89069 Ulm                               birte.glimm@uni-ulm.de
Germany
Received on Tuesday, 11 September 2012 13:49:21 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 26 March 2013 16:15:49 GMT