Minutes : RDF Data Access telecon : 24 May 2005

RDF Data Access Working Group
Tuesday 2005-05-24 14:30-16:30 UTC
Log: http://www.w3.org/2005/05/24-dawg-irc

Chair: Eric
Scribe: AndyS

1. Convene, take roll, review records and agenda

    Souri Das
    Kevin Wilkinson
    Andy Seaborne
    Kendall Clark
    Eric Prud'hommeaux (chair)
    Howard Katz
    Dan Connolly (partial)
    Steve Harris
    Bijan Parsia

    Dave Beckett
    Jeen Broekstra
    Jos Deroo
    Yoshio Fukushige

Next Meeting: May 31
Scribe: Eric Prud'hommeaux

Minutes of the 2005-05-17 RDF DAWG teleconference were approved.

ACTION AndyS: get tests/data/sort/query-sort-1.rq marked approved
   DONE (email sent to SteveH)

Continued the following without discussion:
ACTION: EricP to pair with SteveH on making the HTML test results page
ACTION: DaveB to to propose source test to approve
ACTION: DanC to follow up re optional test based on op:dateTime triple
ACTION: SteveH to prepare test cases for publication as WG Note (no 
ACTION: AndyS to add the above graph test cases (analagous to valueTesting test 
cases) (don't expect quick delivery)

2. publishing results format, protocol

ACTION EricP: to publish http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/DataAccess/rf1/ 1.25
+ editorial notes from DaveB + check from Kendall

Both the results format and the protocol document are expected to be published 
this week.

3. issue fromUnionQuery

ACTION KendallC: reword "the protocol must be preferred by a SPARQL query 
service", perhaps w.r.t. the WSDL interface

ACTION: EricP to try out the "2 list of URIs" datasets design from 

4. issue: valueTesting

ACTION: DanC to send comment on non-use of 
http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema-datatypes to schema comments list
(maybe done but not confirmed)

ACTION: EricP to propose a test re "x"^^mytype != "y"^^mytpe

and still CONTINUED

ACTION: DaveB to work with EricP to clarify valueTesting proposal

Eric asked for assistance from SteveH.  A meeting was arranged for Wednesday 25 
May (UK AM).

Andy noted that the str()/uri() [see below as well] needs addressing under the 
heading of valueTesting.

5. some comments

ACTION DanC: noodle on uri() and str() issue from email 

There had been a post-telecon discussion after the May 17 telecon between DanC 
and PatH about this subject and the action continues.

ACTION: DanC to rethink the use/mention issue w.r.t Tim's email 

6. issue wsdlAbstractProtocol

ACTION DanC: try splitting SparqlQuery interface into SparqlGraph SparqlBindings

In discussion, Kendall observed that while this split can make one part of the 
protocol document simpler, it makes other parts more complicated in dealing with 
two operations, not one.

There was also a discussion on SOAP with a string for query.  A design issue 
arises there there are two result forms: RDF/XML graph and XML result.  Kendall 
believes that there can be an XML schema choice in the 'out' message.

Bijan reviewed the design issues of introducing RDf/XML into SOAP messages, 
particularly use of arbitrary namespaces and attributes if we wanted to some 
schema control of the format.  This is not possible to XML schema.

Kendall asked for proof-by-deployment of the HTTP design.

7. punctuationSyntax

AndyS has listed the outstanding issues where parts fo the SPARQL design affect 
the concrete syntax.


A strawpoll showed no dissent from accepting the current grammar (subject to 
necessary changes from issues elsewhere in SPARQL). The meeting chair put the 
working group on notice that there would be a formal vote next week and that any 
issues should be raised by email (preferrably with test cases).

Souri asked about SPARQL's handling of value, especially with regard to values 
where the data and/or the query had the same values with different lexical 
representations (even when the same datatype).  This is handled different in 
value constrainsts (FILTER - F&O semantics) and graph pattern matches (where it 
depends on whether the store provide RDF D-entailments).  AndyS asked Souri to 
send with any concrete examples that he would like the working group to consider.

Souri also asked about SPARQL language support for property paths of arbitrary 
length (e.g. transitive properties). Bijan noted that the store itself can 
support this through OWL.

8. Last Call schedule


Modification to this plan:

May 31 for a WG candidate for last call for SPARQL/Q
2 weeks later for a WG candidate for SPARQL/P

We will be looking for at least two reviewers for each docuemnt.

Next meeting: May 31st.  Chair: DanC, Scribe: EricP

Received on Wednesday, 25 May 2005 08:15:13 UTC