RE: Agenda: RDF Data Access 27 Jul 2004

> 6. Issue: DESCRIBE
> 
> ACTION AndyS: explain DESCRIBE design implicit in BRQL spec.
> seems done...
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-dawg/2004JulSep/0144.html
> 
> (hmm... there's no issue marker in the "DESCRIBE" section of
>   http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/DataAccess/rq23/
>   $Revision: 1.1 $ of $Date: 2004/07/20 15:21:02 $
> but I thought we raised one. I can't confirm from the ftf records,
> though).

I see an issue ("DESCRIBE: What is it?") in the doc v1.1.  It's at the end
of the example section so isn't that clear.  Will fix.

	Andy

-------- Original Message --------
> From: Dan Connolly <>
> Date: 26 July 2004 16:35
> 
> 1. Convene, take roll, review record, agenda
> 
>   RDF Data Access Working Group
>   http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/DataAccess/
>   Tuesday 2004-07-27 14:30 UTC
>   Zakim Bridge +1.617.761.6200, conference 7333 ("RDFD")
>   http://www.w3.org/Guide/1998/08/teleconference-calendar#s_1343
>   supplementary chat: irc://irc.w3.org:6665/dawg
>        log to appear: http://www.w3.org/2004/07/27-dawg-irc
> 
> Scribe: Dave Beckett
> 
> roll call.
> 
> PROPOSED: to accept
>  Minutes of RDF DAWG telecon 2004-07-20 for review
>  Tue, 20 Jul 2004 12:30:58 -0700
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-dawg/2004JulSep/0151.html
> as a true record.
> 
> note next meeting: 2 Aug. Scribe volunteer?
> 
> I propose to continue this without discussion:
> 
> ACTION EricP: find out the schedule of the 2005 W3C tech plenary and
>  inform the WG so that we can plan ftf meetings after September.
> 
> and to note this as DONE without discussion:
> 
> ACTION DanC: follow up to
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-dawg/2004JulSep/0129.html
> 
> agenda ammendments?
> 
> 
> 2. Test development/maintenance
> 
> ACTION Jos: discuss test suite documentation and maintenance with Steve,
> EricP, AndyS, ...
> some progres...
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-dawg/2004JulSep/0165.html
> 
> 
> 
> 3. Web Services Directory use cases
> 
> ACTION: JimH, to work with Bijan to do some sort of UDDI/Web services
> use case
> 
> ACTION: RobS write email to Farrukh about traversing a taxonomy,
> continues.
> 
> 
> 4. Toward updated Use Cases and Requirements publication
> 
> 
> ACTION Kendall: remove 4.4 User-specifiable Serialization
> 
> ACTION KendallC: draft revision, toward updating our public WD, delivery
> ~next wed.
> 
> hmm... I don't see much progress:
> 
>  RDF Data Access Use Cases and Requirements
>  Live Draft ($Revision: 1.123 $ of $Date: 2004/06/21 15:50:39 $)
>  http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/DataAccess/UseCases
> 
> ACTION: RobS to review the document when complete.
> 
> ACTION Simon+Kendall elaborate the rel. of rules and "construct" in the
> UC&R doc.
> 
> ACTION SimonR: offer a replacement for 4.5 focussed on union query.
> 
> ACTION ericP: send federation use case motivating premises (in Algae)
> 
> ACTION: TomA draft a reply to Chris Wilper and send draft to WG
> mailing list.
> 
> 
> 5. SOURCE, "provenance"/data-management
> 
> cf thread 4.2 : Change "provenance" to "data management"
>
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-dawg/2004JulSep/thread.html#1
17
> 
> The discussion of the objective doesn't seem to have converged, but
> meanwhile, some test cases sprung up, related to SOURCE.
> We also have:
> 
> ACTION Jos: explain log:includes to inform the discussion of SOURCE (nee
> provenance)
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-dawg/2004JulSep/0164.html
> 
> ACTION DanC: explain evolution of log:semantics/log:includes from
> uri-is-graph to uri-is-doc in cwm, to inform discussion of SOURCE
> 
> ACTION DaveB: explain the main uses seen for redland contexts with
> respect to the provenance
> 
> 
> 6. Issue: DESCRIBE
> 
> ACTION AndyS: explain DESCRIBE design implicit in BRQL spec.
> seems done...
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-dawg/2004JulSep/0144.html
> 
> (hmm... there's no issue marker in the "DESCRIBE" section of
>   http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/DataAccess/rq23/
>   $Revision: 1.1 $ of $Date: 2004/07/20 15:21:02 $
> but I thought we raised one. I can't confirm from the ftf records,
> though).
> 
> 
> 7. XQuery integration requirements/objective
> 
> ACTION SimonR: write a document discussing tradeoffs with adapting
> XQuery as an RDF query language for discussion thru the September
> meeting in Bristol.
> 
> ACTION DanC: notify Semantic Web CG of risks around the "1.5
> Relationship with XQuery" scope of our charter.
> 
> This seems relevant:
> Updated doc: Extracting information from RDF for XML processing
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-dawg/2004JulSep/0160.html

Received on Tuesday, 27 July 2004 10:38:44 UTC