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

Re: Minutes from today and Telco Agenda for the next two week

From: Sandro Hawke <sandro@w3.org>
Date: Tue, 11 Dec 2012 09:40:03 -0500
Message-ID: <50C745C3.50102@w3.org>
To: Chime Ogbuji <chimezie@gmail.com>
CC: "Polleres, Axel" <axel.polleres@siemens.com>, "birte.glimm@uni-ulm.de" <birte.glimm@uni-ulm.de>, "public-rdf-dawg@w3.org" <public-rdf-dawg@w3.org>
On 12/11/2012 08:54 AM, Chime Ogbuji wrote:
> rif05 is a test involving a built-in that generates new bindings ( 
> External(pred:iri-string(?z ?x)) ).  FuXi (which is purely a positive 
> Horn clause interpreter with support for predicates with 
> externally-provided truth values) only supports builtins that evaluate 
> to a boolean value from a set of bindings, so it is not likely that it 
> will pass rif05 next week.
>
> Note, as I mentioned a few teleconferences ago, the additional tests 
> were a matter of coverage of RIF Core features and not of of SPARQL 
> 1.1 RIF Entailment, and therefore the difference between integration 
> testing and unit testing.
>

I agree.    I think we're probably okay on RIF tests.  More would be 
nice, but the ease with which SILK was able to pass our tests is very 
reassuring.

     -- Sandro


> -- 
> Chime Ogbuji
> Sent with Sparrow <http://www.sparrowmailapp.com>
>
> On Tuesday, December 11, 2012 at 7:44 AM, Polleres, Axel wrote:
>
>> I think we should discuss whether we are happy with coverage with 
>> these tests.
>> As Chime reports, we can probably approve
>> #rif01
>> #rif03
>> #rif04
>> #rif06
>> And have 2 implementations passing those. However, we miss #rif02 and 
>> #rif05
>>
>> while I understand we can go without rif02 (since it uses rif in RDF 
>> which is only a note),
>> I feel a bit uneasy about going without rif05. Any chance we can have 
>> a second implementation
>> passing rif05 within the next week?
>>
>> Best,
>> Axel
>>
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From: Sandro Hawke [mailto:sandro@w3.org]
>>> Sent: Dienstag, 11. Dezember 2012 13:31
>>> To: birte.glimm@uni-ulm.de <mailto:birte.glimm@uni-ulm.de>
>>> Cc: Polleres, Axel; public-rdf-dawg@w3.org 
>>> <mailto:public-rdf-dawg@w3.org>
>>> Subject: Re: Minutes from today and Telco Agenda for the next two week
>>>
>>> On 12/10/2012 01:59 PM, Birte Glimm wrote:
>>>> Hi all,
>>>>
>>>> we have our institute's Christmas party tomorrow starting at 4pm, but
>>>> I'll take my MiFi and try to connect from there. If I can't get it to
>>>> work, I am happy to vote for publishing GSP and Protocol as PR as
>>>> planned. I hope I manage to vote in person, but just to be sure....
>>>
>>> Given the emails from you and Chime about ER tests passing, it looks to
>>> me like we're ready for ER to go to PR as well. Do you agree, or is
>>> there something I'm missing?
>>>
>>> -- Sandro
>>>
>>>> Birte
>>>>
>>>> On 4 December 2012 17:10, Polleres, Axel <axel.polleres@siemens.com 
>>>> <mailto:axel.polleres@siemens.com>> wrote:
>>>>> Minutes form today’s Telco are out at
>>>>> http://www.w3.org/2009/sparql/meeting/2012-12-04
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> As stated today, next week we aim to vote for GSP and Protocoll and
>>>>> in two weeks we aim to vote for Entailment.
>>>>>
>>>>> The respective Agendas are already online at:
>>>>>
>>>>> http://www.w3.org/2009/sparql/wiki/Agenda-2012-12-11
>>>>>
>>>>> http://www.w3.org/2009/sparql/wiki/Agenda-2012-12-18
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> comments welcome, if you miss anything there!
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Best,
>>>>>
>>>>> Axel
>
Received on Tuesday, 11 December 2012 14:40:26 GMT

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