Minutes of 2004-11-23 teleconference for review

    RDF Data Access Working Group
    Tuesday 2004-11-23 9:30am-11:30am/14:30-16:30 UTC
    log: http://www.w3.org/2004/11/23-dawg-irc


chair: EricP
scribe: AndyS

1. Convene, take roll, review agenda

    Kendall Clark
    Andy Seaborne
    Yoshio Fukushige
    Eric Prud'hommeaux
    Simon Raboczi
    Steve Harris
    Janne Saarela
    Pat Hayes
    Kevin Wilkinson
    Jos De Roo (IRC only)

    Alberto Reggiori
    Dan Connolly
    Dave Beckett
    Howard Katz
    Tom Adams

regrets for 30 Nov (from advanced notifications)
     Dan Connolly, Dave Beckett, Howard Katz, Alberto Reggiori, Steve

Next meeting: 30 Nov 2004 / scribe: Janne (if IRC working)

PROPOSE: to accept as a true record of the last meeting:
RESOLVED without opposition to accept as a true record.

Continued without discussion:

ACTION DanC: owner of issue 'yes or no questions' (pending protocol doc)
ACTION AlbertoR: owns issue 'DESCRIBE'
  The message:
  was noted as "work in progress".
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.
ACTION SteveH: own (i.e. propose resolution to) disjunction issue
ACTION SteveH: owns issue 'nested optionals'

ACTION DanC: notify SemWeb CG of EbXML possible sync point in April
  note: http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/DataAccess/#schedCR

2. FTF 4

19-20 January 2005 Espoo, Finland (Hosted by Profium)
dress warmly!

Currently 12 have said they will attend.  Pat Hayes is seeking funding
to attend.

People who have not indicated whether they will be attending should
register, even if it is to say they will not be there.

3. Test Cases

EricP has updated http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/DataAccess/tests/README to
define a test passing by the text:

A test passes if the graph from the action is logically equivalent
to the graph named in the result. "Logical equivalence" can be tested
by eliminating redundant bNodes in both graphs and testing if the graphs
are isomorphic: same shape, same labels.

ACTION: SteveH is willing to adapt his testing infrastructure to  
generate input/output RDF/XML and typed nodes into manifest file
  What degree of commitment does "willing" imply?

There was a discussion about URIs in the test data and the manifests.
Currently, the manifest files have things like (from simple/manifest.n3)

            [ qt:query  <dawg-tp-01.rq> ;
              qt:data   <data-01.n3> ] ;
        mf:result  <result-tp-01.n3>
that is, relative URIs with relative paths.

ACTION EricP: to resolve relative URIs in RDF/XML (for test manifests)

EricP then suggested a process for accelerating test acceptance.  He
noted that tests were being developed and checked by the implementers
themselves and this was not gaining wider group buy-in.  He suggested
splitting test acceptance into a detailed checking by a small group who
then could pass sets of tests to the WG for acceptance, thus reducing
the need for everyone to have to read in detail every test while under
development.  The small group would be EricP, AndyS, JosD, SteveH.

ACTION ericP: to ask DanC and DaveB to join

4. Protocol

Kendall has two drafts:

The second document was produced by removing material from the first
one: there is no discovery and no update operations.

A straw poll on Kendall's question:
   Which of the two drafts to go forward on

+ Eric, Andy, Steve, Pat, Yoshio for simpler one
+ Janne wants to see an eventual full version

Kendall said he would go forward with the simplex version (query,
getGraph) and that the onus was on people to argue other operations into
the spec.

ACTION KendallC: expose our walking tour data to SPARQL querying clients
  ETA before F2F4

ACTION TomA: read the protocol draft [protocol] and email a review to
the WG before the next telcon 2004-11-09


The message on the comments list was noted:

ACTION JanneS: review
and check what happens when no source support is implemented

ACTION DaveB: update the dawg test repository to record or amend
tests to correspond to the

ACTION DanC: suggest formal definitions for SOURCE

6. SPARQL update, issues

See http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/DataAccess/rq23/

The current status (v1.139) is that sections 1-6 are drafted, sec 7
(UNSAID) is empty, sections 8 and 9 (FROM and SOURCE) now have text, sec
10 (Result Forms) drafted but not merged with text from Alberto's
message.  Sec 12 (list of constraint functions and the extensibility) is
not done.  The grammar has not been worked on recently.

ACTION PatH review SPARQL def'ns post-publication

Last time, there was a detailed review cycle.  To make time for this,
reviewing can start now on sec 1-6 and 10.  Asking for reviewers, the
following offered:
  PatH, SteveH (no time at the moment), KevinW, Yoshio (except time

ACTION: PatH to review editors working draft of rq23

ACTION: KevinW to review editors working draft of rq23

Meeting closed at 15:26 UTC

Received on Tuesday, 23 November 2004 17:38:42 UTC