minutes: RDF Data Access 7 Jun (for review)

On Mon, 2005-06-06 at 13:46 -0500, Dan Connolly wrote:
> 1. Convene, take roll, review records and agenda
>   http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/DataAccess/
>   2005-06-07T14:30Z
>   tel:+1.617.761.6200 code:7333
>   supplementary IRC chat:irc://irc.w3.org:6665/dawg
>     log to appear:http://www.w3.org/2005/06/07-dawg-irc

Present: PatH, DaveB, AndyS, Kendall_Clark, DanC, Jeen_Broekstra, EricP,
JanneS, SteveH

Regrets: Howard, Yoshio Fukushige
Yoshio is on IRC

scribe: PatH, DanC

>   record for review:
>   http://www.w3.org/2005/05/31-dawg-irc

RESOLVED to accept http://www.w3.org/2005/05/31-dawg-irc as a true

> next meeting: 14 June? chair at risk.
>  scribe volunteer?

RESOLVED to meet 14 Jun with KendallC to scribe
 regrets PatH, SteveH

> continue 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 
> deadline/urgency)
> ACTION: AndyS to add the above graph test cases (analagous to valueTesting test 
> cases) (don't expect quick delivery)


> comments on agenda?

we actually discussed the items in a different
order, to avoid having 3. "issue: fromUnionQuery"
take up the whole call again. Items 8 and 9
were not discussed.

> 2. issue wsdlAbstractProtocol
> ACTION: DanC to try splitting SparqlQuery interface into SparqlGraph
> SparqlBindings


but this proposal didn't get a critical mass of support.

> http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/DataAccess/proto-wd/
> revision 1.48 to 1.51 which is, as far as this issue
> is concerned, the same as the 27 May WD.

RESOLVED: to close wsdlAbstractProtocol ala
http://www.w3.org/TR/rdf-sparql-protocol/ 1.51 2005/06/06 18:35:00 ,
i.e. one interface, one operation; HTTP keywords query,
default-graph-uri, named-graph-uri
DaveB, Jeen, SteveH abstaining

> 3. issue: fromUnionQuery
> We're badly in need of a summary of recent email...

DanC summarized by observing 3 designs that seemed to be coherent
and had been developed and advocated sufficiently that we might
be able to finish them in a timely manner:

  (a) without FROM/FROM_NAMED, dataset is unconstrained; with
   FROM/FROM_NAMED, dataset is bounded from below by given references.
  (b) like (a) but FROM/FROM named completely specify the dataset
  (c) datasets have "aggregate graph" rather than background/default
   graph, and it always contains the merge of the named graphs

By "bounded from below," DanC clarified that he meant D1 >= D2 iff
	D1's background/aggregate graph has everything that D2's has,
		i.e. D1's bg graph rdf-simply-entails D2's
	and D1 has all the named graphs that D2 has; i.e.
	for every named graph (U, G) in D2, (U, G) is also in D1's named

KC observed that this is basically a web-social question of
constraining what publishers do.

DC observed that constraining publishers might be responsive
to comments on this part of our spec, in the interest of
interoperability at the expense of flexibility.

Polling showed significant opposition to (c); after that option
was removed, the WG was split nearly 50-50 between (a) and (c).
In the interest of time, the chair chose one of the proposals
and we

RESOLVED: to go option (a) without FROM/FROM_NAMED, dataset is
unconstrained; with FROM/FROM_NAMED, dataset is bounded from below
by given references.
SH objects. abstaing: EricP, DaveB

ACTION AndyS: revise rq23 to suit fromUnionQuery design

> 4. issue valueTesting
> ACTION: DanC to send comment on non-use of
> http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema-datatypes to schema comments list



> ACTION: EricP to propose a test re "x"^^mytype != "y"^^mytpe cf.
> http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/DataAccess/tests/#extendedType-eq-pass

seems extendedType-eq-pass-result.n3 needs fixing
ACTION EricP: finish extendedType-eq-pass-result.n3 test

> ACTION: DaveB to work with EricP to clarify valueTesting proposal
> I gather Steve filled in for DaveB and that this is pretty much
> ready.

indeed, this is DONE to the satisfaction of the meeting.

SH: not too happy about NaN being false. and ""@fr

But this follows from XQuery, and we didn't see sufficient reason
to not follow that precedent.

RESOLVED: to address valueTesting ala
http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/DataAccess/rq23/#tests 1.373 2005/06/06 and
KC, PatH abstaining

AndyS notes IRI/URI stuff still TODO editorially in section 11

> 5. punctuationSyntax
> http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/DataAccess/issues#punctuationSyntax
> "I have updated the grammar in rq23 in preparation for the LC candidate. ..."
>   -- http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-dawg/2005AprJun/0262.html

This issue seemed to be worked out in substance to the satisfaction
of most, if not all present. In discussion of what form the question
should take, it wasn't clear that the grammar in the editor's
draft was done enough to decide on, so we made a decision
based on test materials:

RESOLVED: to address punctuationSyntax ala the 70-ish tests in
PatH and EricP abstaining

> 6. pending Comments
> ACTION: DanC to noodle on uri() and str() issue from email
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-dawg/2005AprJun/0239.html

> ACTION: DanC to rethink the use/mention issue w.r.t Tim's email
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-dawg/2005AprJun/0154.html


the WG decision on str() and uri() is confirmed, even after review of
this new information.

ACTION DanC: respond to timbl on behalf of the WG, after looking at what
ericP wrote

> this one is still pending too:
> SPARQL requirements (and INSERT)
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-dawg-comments/2005Mar/0077.html

remains pending.

> 7. Last Call for SPARQL QL
> http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/DataAccess/rq23/ 1.373 $ of $Date: 2005/06/06 14:45:18
> impact of decisions above?
> a number of @@s remain; how many of them need input from people
> other than the editors?
> 2 reviewers?

KC, SH volunteer to do a last-call-candidate review
JB too

> last call duration
> last call comment handling process

DanC observed that so far, comment handling has been on
a best-effort basis, led by the editors, assisted by
anybody else in the WG, and occasionally audited by DanC.
When we go to last call, it'll get more formal.

This exchange in IRC is quite apt...

5:53:36 [patH]
        Handling comments at last call, it all gets formal. Rather like
        a dance at a 17th century ball.
15:54:58 [kendall]
        Ah, but the great century for formal balls was the 18th and into
        the bow-end of the 19th. :>
15:56:02 [patH]
        Yes, Kendall, but in the 17th they were trying hard to be formal
        but there was still straw on the floor. Its more like that.
15:56:29 [kendall]
        *ah*, excellent. It's formal, but the pig is liable to wander
15:56:34 [patH]

Some relevant excerpts from the W3C process document:

"The following information is important to the decision to advance a
technical report and therefore MUST be publicly available:
      * Responses that formally address issues raised by reviewers"
 -- http://www.w3.org/2004/02/Process-20040205/tr.html#transition-reqs

"3.3.3 Formally Addressing an Issue

In the context of this document, a group has formally addressed an issue
when it has sent a substantive response to the reviewer who raised the
issue. A substantive response is expected to include rationale for
decisions (e.g., a technical explanation, a pointer to charter scope, or
a pointer to a requirements document)."


DC has a WG-local process that has worked reasonably well two
or three times, and plans to use it again for DAWG:

When a comment comes in, there are a few options

(1) editor attempts to satisfy the commentor without changing
any bytes in the spec, perhaps by explaining ala "perhaps section
6.4 answers your question?"

(2) chair attempts to satisfy the commentor by quoting decisions
the WG has already made

(3) a WG member (e.g. editor) is persuaded that some bytes
in the spec should change

        (3a) editorial => editor proposes new text to the chair, copying
        the WG; chair either says "yes, that's clearly editorial; pls
        make the change and notify the commentor"
        or "no, that might not be editorial; I'll put it on the
        WG agenda" or "Fred and Jane, do you agree that's editorial?"
        (3b) non-editorial: for any changes to the design, e.g.
        something that's observable from a test, we'll need a WG
        decision to make the change.

> 8. Last call for SPARQL protocol
> http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/DataAccess/proto-wd/
> revision 1.48 date: 2005/06/03 20:38:20
> (and status tweaks thru $Revision: 1.51 $ of $Date: 2005/06/06 18:35:00 $ )
> a few TODOs remain (in red). target for finishing them?
> 2 reviewers?
> last call start, duration?

not discussed.

> 9. Last call for SPARQL Query Results XML Format
> http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/DataAccess/rf1/
> $Revision: 1.29 $ of $Date: 2005/05/03 09:58:04 $
> i.e. no changes since 27 May.
> various red notes remain. target for finishing them?

not discussed.

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

Received on Thursday, 23 June 2005 15:35:57 UTC