- From: Eric Prud'hommeaux <eric@w3.org>
- Date: Thu, 26 Jan 2006 10:48:45 -0500
- To: RDF Data Access Working Group <public-rdf-dawg@w3.org>
- Message-ID: <20060126154845.GA26709@w3.org>
minutes at http://www.w3.org/2006/01/24-dawg-minutes
[1]W3C
RDF Data Access
24 Jan 2006
See also: [2]IRC log
Attendees
Present
Sven_Groppe, AndyS, jeen, EliasT, EricP, LeeF, Kendall_Clark,
DanC, PatH, EnricoFranconi, Jos_De_Roo
Regrets
libby
Chair
DanC
Scribe
EricP
Contents
* [3]Topics
1. [4]Convene
2. [5]Toward updated protocol WD (and results format WD)
3. [6]issues rdfSemantics, owlDisjunction
4. [7]issues#valueTesting
5. [8]ftf update
* [9]Summary of Action Items
_________________________________________________________________
Convene
DanC notes [10]major technical: semantics are poorly specified
RESOLVED to accept [11]minutes 17 Jan
RESOLVED: to meet again 26 Jan, lee to scribe
Toward updated protocol WD (and results format WD)
DanC: Activity extended through 1 May, (note [12]wg schedule)
issues rdfSemantics, owlDisjunction
DanC: extension message cited in the histroy section
-> [13]http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/DataAccess/#hist histroy section
<DanC> PROPOSED: that [14]editor's draft of SPARQL QL editor's draft
v1.613 2006/01/23 13:13:08 addresses issue rdfSemantics and is
sufficient to postpone issue owlDisjunction.
<DanC> EF: 2nd
Enrico: agreed
<LeeF> There are still a bunch of @@'s in the current draft.
<LeeF> (Well, maybe not a bunch, but some.)
PatH: has options. needs editorial completion
AndyS: two proposals on how to frame extensions in a separate document
... 1. set of hooks
AndyS: 2. extension document gives relations back to the core (SPARQL
Query) document
... pref to keep as much in the extension document as possible
PatH: my [15]second issue (mail sent last night): definition of graph
pattern
Enrico: PatH's proposal doesn't close the RDFS and OWL entailment
... extensions have to *contradict* the standard
<patH> Enrico is wrong about that. For OWL we do need to adjust
things.
Enrico: introducing simple entailment gives you upward compatibility
problems
PatH: we can fix the wording to address this in the current text
<DanC> (musts and shoulds are for protocols)
Enrico: why not just have subgraph matching in the core document?
<kendallclark> I just don't believe shutting off discussion *in this
way* is especially helpful or fair or even polite. My two cents.
Enrico: are we agreeing that we have a normative general definition?
PatH: should the SPARQL spec place normative constraints on how logic
extension behave?
... I think we can take your point under advisement and satisfy your
request
<patH> the current text has the general defintion as normative. We
just said this is acceptable, up to editorail changes. Edirtorial
changes do not change normativity , so :-)
<patH> That was adresed to Enrico.
around the table...
EliasT: abstain
Enrico: Will we keep the definition of ordered merge and scoping set,
... all of section 2.5
Jeen: don't know -- abstain
Sven: i think that ordered merge definition is not formal enough
Sven: it's currently semiformal
KendallC: we're generally happy with that section
DanC: don't find ordered merge (seems complex) appealing, but if it
describes peoples code, am reluctanly happy with it
PatH: don't think we need ordered merge. rest are fine
ericP: would like someone to write an extension document and see if it
contradicts the spec. happy either way. more confident if the
extension is attempted
LeeF: happier if we don't need ordered merge and e-entailment in the
core spec, but if we need that for upwards compatibile, i'm happy
JosD: Disagree because it does not say that blank nodes in a graph
pattern are variables
AndyS: current inclination is to not use ordered merge and use the
@@** text
... the ordered merge is not how implementations do it
<DanC> (it's not a priority for me that the formal definitions match
implementation techniques)
AndyS: we've rushed through how SPARQL is extended. concentrating on
simple entailment with as much latitude as is reasonable
<EnricoFranconi> implementations do subgraph matching, not ordered
merge
<EnricoFranconi> ordered merge is useful only for upward compatibility
ACTION: PatH revise Enrico's "Proposed changes" on matching and
entailment for solution sequences, esp w.r.t. RDFmerge/order. seems
done; there has certainly been lots of relevant mail [DONE] [recorded
in [16]http://www.w3.org/2006/01/24-dawg-irc]
<DanC> proposal to edit readme
[17]http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-dawg/2006JanMar/014
5.html
ACTION: Enrico to review draft text on matching and entailment for
solution sequences seems done; there has certainly been lots of
relevant mail [DONE] [recorded in
[18]http://www.w3.org/2006/01/24-dawg-irc]
ACTION: AndyS to implement test README change from
[19]http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-dawg/2006JanMar/014
5.html [recorded in [20]http://www.w3.org/2006/01/24-dawg-irc]
ACTION: JosD to make test case from Sergio's basic query patterns
examples [DONE] [recorded in
[21]http://www.w3.org/2006/01/24-dawg-irc]
[22]Jos's mail outlining tests
DanC: AndyS, what would the disposition of these tests be with would
your favorite definitions?
AndyS: yes to 1. requires new text in the test cases doc.
PatH: current definitions break the second answer
ACTION: JosD to put
[23]http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-dawg/2006JanMar/004
0 into a test manifest [recorded in
[24]http://www.w3.org/2006/01/24-dawg-irc]
<LeeF> The 3rd solution breaks some of the coreferentiality of _:a_0
ACTION: AndyS to revise rq23 to remove @@s from 2.5 [recorded in
[25]http://www.w3.org/2006/01/24-dawg-irc]
issues#valueTesting
[26]http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/DataAccess/rq23/#FunctionMapping
[27]http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/DataAccess/rq23/#evaluation
<DanC> "Casting in SPARQL is performed by calling a constructor
function for the target type on an operand of the source type."
[28]http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/DataAccess/rq23/#operandDataTypes
<DanC> PROPOPSED: that [29]http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/DataAccess/rq23/
1.613 section 11 addresses issues#valueTesting
<DanC> (looking for comments pending on this issue...
[30]http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/DataAccess/issues#valueTesting )
<Zakim> DanC, you wanted to ask about Levering's question
[31]http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-dawg-comments/2005S
ep/0011
<DanC> PatH: note equivilence typo
DanC: can you address Ryan Levering'S comment?
EricP: yes, current text addresses them
RESOLVED: that [32]http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/DataAccess/rq23/ 1.613
section 11 addresses issues#valueTesting, UMD abstaining
ftf update
[33]quick sketch of TP f2f agenda, [34]registration
<AndyS> F2F: 2/3 March at Cannes (W3C all groups meetng)
<AndyS> Agenda covers: LC issues + features to postpone + SPARQL v2
<AndyS> Also meeting #SWIG (Thurs) and RIF (MoTu), SWBPD?
<AndyS> SWBPD maybe Friday
<Zakim> DanC, you wanted to ask in stongest possible terms that we
finish LC comments well before the TP
<AndyS> DanC suggests strongly not having LC issues on agenda
<kendallclark> I would love to come to Cannes again... but I didn't
know we were meeting and I declined the trip when my boss asked. :)
<kendallclark> oh well
<AndyS> we conclude registration is open (for all meetings at
AllGroups)
<DanC> (to repeat: I'm more likely to be at the IG meeting than at
DAWG)
<patH> I very much doubt I will be able to make it, but could phone in
to any discussions if its worth trying.
ADJOURNED
Summary of Action Items
[NEW] ACTION: AndyS to implement test README change from
[35]http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-dawg/2006JanMar/014
5.html [recorded in [36]http://www.w3.org/2006/01/24-dawg-irc]
[NEW] ACTION: AndyS to revise rq23 to remove @@s from 2.5 [recorded in
[37]http://www.w3.org/2006/01/24-dawg-irc]
[NEW] ACTION: JosD to put
[38]http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-dawg/2006JanMar/004
0 into a test manifest [recorded in
[39]http://www.w3.org/2006/01/24-dawg-irc]
[DONE] ACTION: Enrico to review draft text on matching and entailment
for solution sequences seems done; there has certainly been lots of
relevant mail [recorded in [40]http://www.w3.org/2006/01/24-dawg-irc]
[DONE] ACTION: JosD to make test case from Sergio's basic query
patterns examples [recorded in
[41]http://www.w3.org/2006/01/24-dawg-irc]
[DONE] ACTION: PatH revise Enrico's "Proposed changes" on matching and
entailment for solution sequences, esp w.r.t. RDFmerge/order. seems
done; there has certainly been lots of relevant mail [recorded in
[42]http://www.w3.org/2006/01/24-dawg-irc]
[End of minutes]
_________________________________________________________________
Minutes formatted by David Booth's [43]scribe.perl version 1.127
([44]CVS log)
$Date: 2006/01/26 15:45:10 $
References
1. http://www.w3.org/
2. http://www.w3.org/2006/01/24-dawg-irc
3. http://www.w3.org/2006/01/24-dawg-minutes#agenda
4. http://www.w3.org/2006/01/24-dawg-minutes#item01
5. http://www.w3.org/2006/01/24-dawg-minutes#item02
6. http://www.w3.org/2006/01/24-dawg-minutes#item03
7. http://www.w3.org/2006/01/24-dawg-minutes#item04
8. http://www.w3.org/2006/01/24-dawg-minutes#item05
9. http://www.w3.org/2006/01/24-dawg-minutes#ActionSummary
10. http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-dawg-comments/2006Jan/0063
11. http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-dawg/2006JanMar/att-0138/17-dawg-minutes-edited.htm
12. http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/DataAccess/#sched
13. http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/DataAccess/#hist
14. http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/DataAccess/rq23/
15. http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-dawg/2006JanMar/0246
16. http://www.w3.org/2006/01/24-dawg-irc
17. http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-dawg/2006JanMar/0145.html
18. http://www.w3.org/2006/01/24-dawg-irc
19. http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-dawg/2006JanMar/0145.html
20. http://www.w3.org/2006/01/24-dawg-irc
21. http://www.w3.org/2006/01/24-dawg-irc
22. http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-dawg/2006JanMar/0040.html
23. http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-dawg/2006JanMar/0040
24. http://www.w3.org/2006/01/24-dawg-irc
25. http://www.w3.org/2006/01/24-dawg-irc
26. http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/DataAccess/rq23/#FunctionMapping
27. http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/DataAccess/rq23/#evaluation
28. http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/DataAccess/rq23/#operandDataTypes
29. http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/DataAccess/rq23/
30. http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/DataAccess/issues#valueTesting
31. http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-dawg-comments/2005Sep/0011
32. http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/DataAccess/rq23/
33. http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-dawg/2006JanMar/thread#msg151
34. http://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35125/TP2006/
35. http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-dawg/2006JanMar/0145.html
36. http://www.w3.org/2006/01/24-dawg-irc
37. http://www.w3.org/2006/01/24-dawg-irc
38. http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-dawg/2006JanMar/0040
39. http://www.w3.org/2006/01/24-dawg-irc
40. http://www.w3.org/2006/01/24-dawg-irc
41. http://www.w3.org/2006/01/24-dawg-irc
42. http://www.w3.org/2006/01/24-dawg-irc
43. http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2002/scribe/scribedoc.htm
44. http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/2002/scribe/
--
-eric
office: +81.466.49.1170 W3C, Keio Research Institute at SFC,
Shonan Fujisawa Campus, Keio University,
5322 Endo, Fujisawa, Kanagawa 252-8520
JAPAN
+1.617.258.5741 NE43-344, MIT, Cambridge, MA 02144 USA
cell: +81.90.6533.3882
(eric@w3.org)
Feel free to forward this message to any list for any purpose other than
email address distribution.
Received on Thursday, 26 January 2006 15:48:55 UTC