See also: IRC log
<kendallclark> shit
<kendallclark> i think i forgot to tell zakim about the new meeting time
<kendallclark> i wonder how badly that screws us?
<kendallclark> ericP: you here?
<AndyS> EricP sent his regrets
<ericP> EricP is in a f2f. DanC agreed to represent W3
<scribe> Scribe: EliasT
<kendallclark> DanC: thanks
<kendallclark> DanC: can you remind me of the email address to which I should send email about schedule changes?
<kendallclark> SteveH: are you there?
<SteveH> kendallclark, aye, sorry, didnt relaise what the time was
<kendallclark> are you calling in today?
<SteveH> will be online shortly
<kendallclark> uri?
any regrets?
<DanC> comments from PFPS 22 Feb http://www.w3.org/mid/20060222.185654.133907622.pfps@research.bell-labs.com , noted in http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/DataAccess/crq349#obj
<kendallclark> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-dawg/2006AprJun/0162.html
<kendallclark> Amended, thus: Present: KendallC, AFS, EricP, FredZ, PatH, EliasT, LeeF
<kendallclark> Possibly partial list of attendees
<AndyS> Poss AOBs: Test suite? Other implementations for CR?
<kendallclark> argh, lost network...
FredZ: When does the group think we'll finish?
DanC: We are dependent on XQuery and that's not finished.
kendallclark: After July holidays, he'll be responsible to announce if there's a chance to conclude by November.
<DanC> (sounds like Andy is asking to discuss the implementation report http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/DataAccess/imp39 )
<kendallclark> thanks
+xml
<DanC> PROPOSED: to justify the json mime type by noting that JSON might be used to serialized RDF abstract syntax, so app/json doesn't distinguish the results format
<DanC> PROPOSED: to justify the json results mime type by noting that JSON might be used to serialized RDF abstract syntax, so app/json doesn't distinguish the results format
AndyS: reminds us that a possible JSON RDF Graph encoding convention that would sparql-results+json format.
<kendallclark> RESOLVED
EliasT: seconds.
<kendallclark> ACTION: EliasT to respond to Mark Baker's comments re: MIME type as we just resolved [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2006/06/20-dawg-minutes.html#action01]
http://dowhatimean.net/2006/05/rdfjson
-> RDF/JSON using SPARQL REsults Format in JSON for Graph encoding.
kendallclark: Looking for status from OPTIONALS discussion between FredZ, PatH, ericP and others.
FredZ: I have been having a private discussion with PatH, ericP and AndyS
KendallClark: I would like more of the traffic in the public mailing list to be able to track it better.
AndyS: He's not proposing changing semantics in CR
... looking more for editorial at the moment.
FredZ: You have seen my comments, what do you think?
AndyS: I find the grammar fixes/tweaks to be ok.
... we need to fix bnodes, blank nodes, blank labels.
... but I need to go more through your comments first.
<kendallclark> Tying things *more* closely to the grammar though is at cross-purposes w/ the comments about semantics from the guys at Pontifical U in Chile, though -- I think...
<kendallclark> Isn't that thrust in conflict with:
<kendallclark> 1) The evaluation process of a language should be directed by a
<kendallclark> clear semantics and not by the language grammar
<kendallclark> (http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-dawg-comments/2006Apr/0023.html).
DanC: We currently don't specify some connections between the semantics and the grammar.
FredZ, can you please type this?
<DanC> { P1 } UNION { P2 } OPTIONAL { P3 }
<Zakim> DanC, you wanted to note app/xml doesn't distinguish RDF/XML from sparql-results and to think out loud about the explicit mapping from grammar to semantics
AndyS: We can add references to grammar rules in the definition sections to explicitly state the connection and hope that our users can benefit from that.
<kendallclark> Steve?
<SteveH> yes, im following, but I implement OPTIONAL as prefix, not infeix
<SteveH> (bug)
<SteveH> steve.harris@garlik.com
<kendallclark> ACTION: FredZ to write an email w/ a test for the test suite re: { P1 } UNION { P2 } OPTIONAL { P3 } [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2006/06/20-dawg-minutes.html#action02]
<AndyS> c.f. http://sparql.org/validator.html
<Zakim> DanC, you wanted to note relationships between Oracle 9 Jun stuff and issues
<DanC> an open issue is a promise to make a decision. http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/DataAccess/issues
<DanC> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-dawg/2006AprJun/0117.html
<DanC> comment on A.7 "Grammar"
<scribe> ACTION: KendallClark to reopen punctuationSyntax to take up commas in SELECT clause. [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2006/06/20-dawg-minutes.html#action03]
<DanC> I suggest KC think about marking http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/DataAccess/issues#nestedOptionals re-opened
<kendallclark> a prerogative I'm largely scared of :)
<kendallclark> danc: based on which message, please?
<DanC> well, based on today's agenda, for example, and the question you asked to SteveH
<kendallclark> yep, fair enough...
<kendallclark> ACTION: KendallC to reopen nestedOptionals [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2006/06/20-dawg-minutes.html#action04]
<DanC> I could probably find 3 to 6 public-dawg-comments messages on optionals
<DanC> KC leans toward a new issue rather than nestedOptionals
<scribe> ACTION: take up new issue concatenated nestedOptional [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2006/06/20-dawg-minutes.html#action05]
<DanC> ACTION 4 = KendallC to open an issue around optionals
<DanC> PFPS 22 Feb
<DanC> [[
<DanC> C2.38: This is very misleading. SPARQL matching does indeed restrict the bnode
<DanC> in query results to be bnodes from the RDF graph, but not in a useful way. For
<DanC> example,
<DanC> ?x ex:a ex:b .
<DanC> matches against
<DanC> _:a ex:a _:b .
<DanC> with two results for ?x, at least as far as I can determine.
<DanC> ]]
<DanC> ACTION: DanC to review PFPS's comments for more test cases [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2006/06/20-dawg-minutes.html#action06]
<kendallclark> ACTION: EliasT to turn C2.38 in PFPS's message into a test case [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2006/06/20-dawg-minutes.html#action07]
<DanC> implementation report stub
<kendallclark> Test suite, show coverage of language features by 2 or more implementations -- our CR exit criteria
<SteveH> things aren't too bad for me at the moment, I can do a bit on the tests
<SteveH> sure
<Zakim> EliasT, you wanted to ask about how do I got about fixing some test cases: approved and not.
<Zakim> DanC, you wanted to note my favorite precedent: http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/WebOnt/impls http://www.w3.org/2003/08/owl-systems/test-results-out
<DanC> EARL - the Evaluation And Report Language http://www.w3.org/2001/03/earl/
<SteveH> the test generator should use SPARQL too...
<SteveH> *result generator
<AndyS> August 1.
<SteveH> 50/50
<DanC> PROPOSED: to meet 27 Jun 14:30Z, DanC to scribe
<DanC> so RESOLVED
<SteveH> bye