minutes: RDF Data Access WG 19Oct (non-IRC version)

On Fri, 2004-10-22 at 13:19, Dan Connolly wrote:
> http://www.w3.org/2004/10/19-dawg-irc
>
> (Simon, poke poke, again.)

Simon sent the following; the computers got in the
way somehow, so I'm re-sending it. Beware of
dups...


	Shamefacedly and much belatedly, I offer the following:
        
        
        Minutes of RDF Data Access Working
        Group(http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/DataAccess/) teleconference for
        Tuesday2004-10-19T14:30:00Z, for review.
        
        Supplementary chat log from irc://irc.w3.org:6665/dawg available
        athttp://www.w3.org/2004/10/19-dawg-irc
        
        Scribe: Simon Raboczi
        
        
        1. Convene, take roll, review record and agenda
        
        roll call
        
        Present:
          Tom Adams
          Dave Beckett
          Kendall Clark
          Dan Connolly
          Yoshio Fukushige
          Steve Harris
          Pat Hayes
          Eric Prud'hommeaux
          Simon Raboczi
          Alberto Reggiori
          Hiroyuki Sato
          Andy Seaborne
        
        Regrets:
          Jos De Roo
          Howard Katz
          Farrukh Najmi
        
        PROPOSED: to accept minutes for 10-12-2004 meeting
        http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-dawg/2004OctDec/0132.html
        as a true record of our meeting 2004-10-12
        RESOLVED to
        adopthttp://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-dawg/2004OctDec/0132.htmwith two amendments:
        1) the re-addition of Kendall's ACTION to produce a protocol
        draft
        2) Alberto's amendments
        fromhttp://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-dawg/2004OctDec/0143.html
        
        
        next meeting: Tuesday, October 26, 2004
        Tom Adams tentatively volunteers to scribe, with Alberto
        Reggiori asbackup.
        
        
        Sundry ACTIONs not warranting their own agenda:
        
        ACTION KendallC: expose walking tour data to SPARQL querying
        clients
        CONTINUES without discussion, ETA before F2F4
        
        ACTION EricP: find logistics re F2F5 at tech plenary in Boston
        March
        28 Feb - 4 Mar (2 days).  Some WG preference to Mon/Tue of that
        week.
        EricP responds in
        http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-dawg/2004OctDec/0144.html
        with:
        28 February - 4 March 2005 (Monday - Friday)
        meetings Monday/Tuesday 28 Feb-1 March and Thursday/Friday 3-4
        March
        Hyatt Harborside
        Hotelhttp://www.harborside.hyatt.com/property/index.jhtml
        Boston, MA, USA
        
        ACTION DanC: talk with Kendall about issues list maintenance
        DONE.
        
        
        2. Publication of SPARQL design and Data Access UC&R
        
        Thanks offered to EricP, AndyS, Kendall and all.
        
        SPARQL Query Language for RDF
        http://www.w3.org/TR/2004/WD-rdf-sparql-query-20041012/
        
        RDF Data Access Use Cases and Requirements
        http://www.w3.org/TR/2004/WD-rdf-dawg-uc-20041012/
        
        AndyS suggests another WD circa December, before the January
        meeting.
        EricP: W3C December holidays publishing moritorium: last request
        on20-Dec, last pub: 22-Dec
        
        
        3. Feedback on the SPARQL design
        
        [Fwd: Coments on first working draft of SPARQL]
        Seaborne, Andy (Sunday, 17 October)
        http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-dawg/2004OctDec/0130.html
        and a few others.
        
        Peter Patel-Schneider commented that "bound" is something
        procedural-- AndyS to discuss in email.
        Peter P-S raised an issue about the definition of subgraph.
        DanC suggests asking for a test case to clarify the subgraph
        issue.
        
        
        ACTION: PatH review SPARQL def'ns post-publication
        CONTINUES
        
        ACTION Dirk: provide details about DB interfaces, re '?' and '$'
        CONTINUES for one more week -- proposed to drop if no progress
        by then
        
        
        To what extent are these issues addressed by the 2004-Oct-12
        drafts?
        
        ACTION AlbertoR: owns issue 'DESCRIBE'
        AlbertoR hasn't gone through the draft yet to be able to
        determinewhether the DESCRIBE issue is addressed by the 12Oct
        draft. AlbertoRexpects he'll take 2-3 weeks to get to it.
        http://www.w3.org/TR/rdf-sparql-query/#describe
        AndyS believes that there is more work to be done on DESCRIBE.
        AndySintends to post to the list.  AndyS would like the retract
        the CBDsuggestion in section 11.3 of the WD because CBD is still
        fluid.
        
        ACTION SteveH: own (i.e. propose resolution to) disjunction
        issue
        SteveH on disjunction: he's currently only happy with
        removingdisjunction.
        patH: Disjunction is logically troublesome unless stated
        veeeerycarefully.
        AndyS is inclined to re-include disjunction.
        
        ACTION SteveH: owns issue 'nested optionals'
        DaveB: end of section 5 has a nested optional example
        
        ACTION: Tom to send sample iTQL queries and result formats for
        subqueries vs. disjunction
        DONEhttp://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-dawg/2004OctDec/0148.html
        
        ACTION DanC: owner of issue 'yes or no questions'
        http://www.w3.org/TR/rdf-sparql-query/#ask
        DanC said he's satisfied with the current spec, however
        Kendalldoesn't feel the current ASK definition is satisfactory.
        Eric proposed that this will be best handled with a protocol
        documenton the table next to the query lang.
        
        Kendall asserted the the present SPARQL ql draft satisfied him
        re:PREFIX, which he was issue owner of.
        http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/DataAccess/issues#prefixSyntax
        DaveB however then raised issues with prefix: prefix can
        currentappear in two places in the grammar according to the
        production Query::= PrefixDecl* ReportFormat PrefixDecl* and
        it's not specified inwhich order repeated instances override
        each other.
        DaveB took an ACTION to illustrate prefix interaction details
        byexample/test
        DanC requests for all to be ready to resolve next week the
        PREFIXissue.
        
        AndyS has done writing on value testing which he'd like to
        getcomments upon.
        
        AndyS is inclined to drop the UNSAID feature, based on it
        beingprocedural.
        Kendall and SimonR both have uses within their
        respectiveorganizations for UNSAID and were reluctant to see it
        dropped.
        
        
        4. Web Services Constraints and Capabilities
        
        ACTION EricP: draft UC on overlap between RDF query and web
        service
        constraints with respect to WS-Policy
        CONTINUES
        http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-dawg/2004OctDec/0145.html
        http://www.w3.org/2004/08/20-ws-pol-pos/#query
        DaveB requested a summary of the WS requirements (e.g.
        conjunctionnow, disjunction eventually), which Eric agreed to
        supply.
        Eric noted that neither policies not capabilities are expressed
        in RDF.
        
        
        5. SOURCE
        
        ACTION: SteveH to turn his SOURCE tests into SPARQL ones
        
        dawg-source-simple-* Steve Harris (Friday, 15 October)
        http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-dawg/2004OctDec/0124.html
        
        ACTION DaveB: Update the source section 9, add more formal
        links,
        update the examples, try to think about extra constraints as
        EricP
        proposed (SOURCE ?s and ?s only in in SELECT). Look at various
        people's source test cases.
        
        DanC assessed that we have progress on SOURCE tests, but there's
        stillhaggling in progress on the actual definition.
        DaveB noted that the current syntax contains all the syntax for
        namedcontainers.
        DanC asks whether the various different designs for SOURCE are
        indeedequivalent or not?
        SteveH replied negatively, that he can produce a test case that
        wouldbehave differently between his implementation and AndyS's.
        SteveH: Andy and I disagree
        abouthttp://www.w3.org/2001/sw/DataAccess/tests/#dawg-source-simple-001
        Discussion continued on until after the meeting about whether
        thecurrent behavior in the tests was tenable (i.e. that
        returningduplicate rows in a result is different from a result
        with just onecopy of the same row)
        
        Meeting adjourned at 15:38:00Z.
        
        
        Recapping, for next time:
        - Dan wants us to be able to resolve PREFIX at the next
        teleconference.
        - Andy wants feedback on his value testing material.
        

-- 
Dan Connolly, W3C http://www.w3.org/People/Connolly/
D3C2 887B 0F92 6005 C541  0875 0F91 96DE 6E52 C29E