- From: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>
- Date: Thu, 30 Jun 2005 17:11:11 -0500
- To: RDF Data Access Working Group <public-rdf-dawg@w3.org>
On Mon, 2005-06-27 at 14:14 -0500, Dan Connolly wrote:
> 1. Convene, take roll, review records and agenda
>
> http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/DataAccess/
>
> 2005-06-28T14:30Z **local times below
> tel:+1.617.761.6200 code:7333
> supplementary IRC chat:irc://irc.w3.org:6665/dawg
> log to appear:http://www.w3.org/2005/06/28-dawg-irc
http://www.w3.org/2005/06/28-dawg-minutes
text copy of version of $Date: 2005/06/30 22:07:23 $
follows
[1]W3C
[1] http://www.w3.org/
RDF Data Access Weekly Telcon
28 Jun 2005
Attendees
Present
AndyS, DanC, DaveB, Eric, Jeen_Broekstra, Kendall_Clark,
KevinW, PatH, Souri, SteveH, Yoshio, ericP,
Regrets
HowardK
Chair
DanC
Scribe
KendallC + EricP + DanC
Contents/Agenda
1. [2]Convene, take roll, review records and agenda
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-dawg/2005AprJun/042
2.html
2. [3]Next ftf?
3. [4]Comments
4. [5]syntax-qname-08-rq and syntax-qname-14-rq
5. [6]IRI normalization
6. [7]Refining Optionals
7. [8]solution modifiers & construct/describe
8. [9]COUNT requirement?
9. [10]SPARQL QL publication
See also: [11]IRC log, [12]proposed agenda
[11] http://www.w3.org/2005/06/28-dawg-irc
[12] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-dawg/2005AprJun/0422.html
_________________________________________________________________
Convene, take roll, review records and agenda
scribe: KendallC + EricP
<kendall> scribing helps me follow the conversation anyway :>
<ericP> yeah, i know what you mean
RESOLVED to approve [13]minutes 7 Jun , [14]minutes 14 Jun
[13] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-dawg/2005AprJun/0411.html
[14] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-dawg/2005AprJun/0412.html
<kendall> Regrets (partial): HowardK
RESOLVED to meet again 5 Jul per regular schedule; EricP to scribe
note 4 Jul holiday in the US
Next ftf?
Offer from HP for sometime in August
During most (but not all) of the weeks of Augustin BRS
<DaveB> I like brs in august :)
<Yoshio> in which week of August?
<kendall> I'll be in Houston for some 7 to 10 day stretch during
August, but I'll try to avoid overlap with f2f.
<ericP> ericP +1 to BRS in august in the range of 8-Aug - 18-Aug
note [15]HP offer again.
[15] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-dawg/2005AprJun/0383.html
Chair suffers ennui, capitulates for now. :>
Comments
[16]public-rdf-dawg-comments archive
[16] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-dawg-comments/
DanC has a long outstanding comment re: INSERT...
discussion of [17]blank node comments
[17] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-dawg-comments/2005Jun/0039.html
syntax-qname-08-rq and syntax-qname-14-rq (punctuationSyntax)
<kendall> Tests affected by the proposal:
* [18]tests/#syntax-qname-08-rq
* [19]tests/#syntax-qname-14-rq
[18] http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/DataAccess/tests/#syntax-qname-08-rq
[19] http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/DataAccess/tests/#syntax-qname-14-rq
<DaveB> 08: WHERE { :a. x.: : . }
WHERE { :a. x.: : . }
Is there any new evidence to reopen the dots-in-qnames decision?
<kendall> Other than that people keep being unhappy about it?
EricP completely ambivalent
PatH wonders whether redefining qname syntax is any of our business
PatH suggests intra-spec consistency more important than minor (?)
bits of convenience
<DaveB> XML does have the '.' allowed
<DaveB> whereas we currently don't
<SteveH> DaveB, I though we did
<kendall> +1 for XML qname rules from me
<DaveB> err.., you are right we do now
<SteveH> yes, +1 for XML rules
<kendall> Yoshio: both! :>
<Yoshio> :-)
<kendall> but I meant between different specs, not within one spec. :>
<kendall> (scribe dropping details...)
differences from XML: _foo:bar not allowed
differences from XML: foo: allowed
<DaveB> andy says _:a is not allowed - diff from xml
<DaveB> and currently _foo:bar also not allowed
JosD notes considerable deployment of { a b c. }
<DaveB> turtle's never allowed a b c.
<kendall> (hmm, epistemic sins may seem to license future sins! :>)
<SteveH> ericP, generated queries would need special rules for qnames
with .s
<DaveB> they'll need special rules anyway to escape <s, "s etc. etc.
EricP: note qnames are just short-hand; in the general case, you can
write out the full URI
<AndyS> Is < legal in an IRI at all?
<DaveB> you can use \u002E always anwyay
<kendall> heh
<ericP> a:b a:c <[20]http://example.org/#foo.>
[20] http://example.org/#foo.%3E
<ericP> a:b a:c c:foo.
a:b a:c c:foo. .
<kendall> eek
<ericP> { a:b a:c c:foo. . a:d a:e a:f }
<ericP> DaveB, i read c:foo.... as <$ns{c}:foo....>
POLL: (a) not dots in qnames (b) dots in qnames except at the end (c)
dots in qnames even at the end
a -4
a -5
b -1
c -1
c -2
<kendall> and qname rules are already maximally arbitrary, so one more
bit isn't really one more! :>
RESOLVED: to allow dots in qnames except at the end. Dave, Pat abstain
<ericP> i'm happy for a decision
<kendall> ACTION: JosD to fix up the relevant tests [recorded in
[21]http://www.w3.org/2005/06/28-dawg-minutes.html#action01]
[21] http://www.w3.org/2005/06/28-dawg-minutes.html#action01
IRI normalization
[22]msg from EricP
[22] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-dawg/2005AprJun/0430.html
[23]tests/data/i18n/normalization-01.rq
[23] http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/DataAccess/tests/data/i18n/normalization-01.rq
ACTION: EricP add a note that users should be aware of
non-canonicalization of IRIs
ACTION: SteveH to review the relevant test case re: IRI normalization
Refining Optionals
[24]Refining Optionals from AndyS
[24] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-dawg/2005AprJun/0415.html
ACTION: PatH to review new optionals defintions, if any
solution modifiers & construct/describe
[25]comments from KendallC
[25] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-dawg/2005AprJun/0420.html
<kendall> That would help, I think, make the design more clear.
ACTION: AndyS to rework CONSTRUCT def'n
ACTION: AndyS to add new construct examples, with solution
modifier(s), to spec
COUNT requirement?
* [26]Review: Query Result Form --> need COUNT ?
[26] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-dawg/2005AprJun/0435.html
souri: making sure folks are conciously not including COUNT(*)
<kendall> i could see the utility of COUNT, but i think we have to
punt till 2.0 at this relatively late date
<kendall> Need something in the results format to serialize it, as
well
<AndyS> Better design for ASK. Low cost for COUNT(*)
<DaveB> we'd be adding a new result format
<DaveB> that means new services, new xml formats
<SteveH> AndyS, COUNT can be considerably more expensive than ASK
<AndyS> Steve - ASK = SELECT EXIST in Souri's message
<SteveH> AndyS, yes
<DaveB> is EXIST a SQL keyword?
Souri: we could have the results of COUNT as a new return type ala ASK
Souri suggests a whole range of cardinality queries motivate this
<Yoshio> I share the need for COUNT, remember the need I mentioned of
giving the user the chance to polish the query...
<ericP> AndyS: next step, GROUP BY, is expensive
<kendall> simple v. complex (arbitrary) aggregates, basically
<kendall> Souri suggests ASK is a kind of simple aggregate already
<ericP> Souri: COUNT covers EXISTS (ASK) but is slightly more
expensive
<ericP> AndyS: are we ruling out or making later grouping
functionality inconvenient
<kendall> Yeah, +1 to pat's question
<ericP> PatH: how?
<ericP> AndyS: probably an unfortunate syntax choice
<kendall> AndyS largely worried about syntax that might not be forward
compatible
<kendall> COUNT * only for now; then add COUNT var ... GROUP BY ...
EricP wants to wait till we do aggregates generally.
<kendall> (I agreed with that till Souri argued that ASK is already a
simple aggregate which COUNT * would also be...)
<kendall> Souri would be content w/ a deferral at this point
RESOLVED: to add a count/aggregate issue and postpone it, due to
schedule considerations
SPARQL QL publication
Reviewing decision from last week:
PROPOSED: to publish rq23 (1.395) , addressing FILTER and 3
editorial changes, with KendallC & JosD reviewing these changes
post 1.395, as a Last Call Working Draft
DanC trying to figure out what the LC vote meant ...how much editing
is up to the editors
(1) optionals, andy/pat, (2) IRI non-normalization, ericp (3) ...
<DaveB> & pick a namespace name for xmlresults?
<DaveB> I pick [27]http://www.w3.org/2005/06/sparqlResults
[27] http://www.w3.org/2005/06/sparqlResults
<kendall> Do the editor's intend the doc to LC w/ the red sections
about consensus issues still in the doc?
TODO list for the spec:
strike "@@Ensure markup around examples enables XSLT extraction."
drop "@@Labeling when document is TOC-stable"
<scribe> done @@Matching is on a graph from a dataset.
"@@Prefix - sec 1.1 - See if there are any - consider rewriting if a
just a few."
strike.
RESOLVED: [28]http://www.w3.org/2005/06/sparqlResults for results
namespace name
[28] http://www.w3.org/2005/06/sparqlResults
ACTION: DanC to put a doc at the new results format namespace
RESOLVED: to publish SPARQL ql as last call, v1.406 + 9 changes,
contingnent on review as follows
1. optionals, andy/pat
2. IRI non-normalization, ericp
3. construct/limit andy/kc
4. clarify which regex lang, new section ericp, andys
5. defns extraction. ericp
6. qname-dots grammar. AndyS, EricP
7. results ns andys
8. SOTD DanC, EricP
9. production 20 grammar edit by andy
ADJOURN.
_________________________________________________________________
minutes edited by DanC based on notes by KendallC and EricP
formatted by David Booth's [29]scribe.perl version 1.126
$Date: 2005/06/30 22:07:23 $
[29] http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2002/scribe/scribedoc.htm
--
Dan Connolly, W3C http://www.w3.org/People/Connolly/
D3C2 887B 0F92 6005 C541 0875 0F91 96DE 6E52 C29E
Received on Thursday, 30 June 2005 22:11:22 UTC