Re: agenda, 12 December at 14:30 UTC

Lee Feigenbaum wrote:
> 0. Convene [1]RDF Data Access WG meeting of Tuesday, 12 December, 2006 
> at 14:30:00 UTC
>                  + LeeF chairing
>                  + comments on the agenda
>          + teleconference bridge: [3]tel:+1.617.761.6200 code:7333
>          + @@ No scribe yet
>          + roll call
>          + 05 Dec minutes are in draft[2] - can we approve them as is?
>          + next meeting 19 Dec, recruit scribe
>          + agenda comments?
> 
> 
> 1. Review ACTION Items
> 
> I propose to mark these CONTINUED:
> 
> ACTION: Jeen propose test suite process (not do it all).
> ACTION: LeeF to review rq24-algebra
> ACTION: KendallC to close formsOfDistinct issue
> ACTION: KendallC to remember that the wee, lost filter tests should be put 
> to the question
> ACTION: PatH to change the entailment section around to talk about SPARQL 
> first, then more general conditions in a normative appendix
> ACTION: ericP to seek clarification on 
> http://www.w3.org/mod/20061110085518567.00000002912@bmacgregor1
>   [ed: that link doesn't seem to work for me -- is this action about     
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-dawg-comments/2006Nov/0004.html 
> ? ]

Yes - (the minutes of 28 Nov didn't get formatted correctly to pick this one out)

http://www.w3.org/2006/11/28-dawg-minutes.html#action02

> 
> 
> 2. Operator mapping
> 
> Original message from Corby:
>   http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-dawg/2006OctDec/0171.html
> 
> Follow-up from EricP with proposals:
>   http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-dawg/2006OctDec/0190.html
> 
> ** I'd like to get a decision on at least the first proposal to patch the 
> text in Sec. 11.
> 
> 
> 3. Bob MacGregor's comments on UNSAID
> 
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-dawg/2006OctDec/0191.html
> 
> ** Is there any new information here to reconsider the closed UNSAID 
> issue[5]?
> 
> 
> 4. FILTER interaction with OPTIONAL/LeftJoin
> 
> AndyS: 
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-dawg-comments/2006Dec/0014.html
> 
> ** The design here affects queries such as:
> 
>   { 
>     ?x foaf:age ?age . 
>     OPTIONAL { ?x ex:salary ?salary . FILTER (?age > 18 ) . 
>     ?x foaf:name ?name
>   }

Another good test case is on involving equality because all SPARQL joins are 
equijoin-like:

== Data:
@prefix :          <http://example/> .

:x1 :q :z1 .
:x1 :p 1 .
:x1 :p 2 .

:x2 :q :z2 .
:x2 :r 1 .
:x2 :r 2 .

== Query 1:
SELECT ?x ?v ?w
{ ?x :q ?v . OPTIONAL { ?x :p ?w } }

== Query 2:
SELECT ?x ?v ?w
{ ?x :q ?v . OPTIONAL { ?y :p ?w FILTER(?x = ?y) } }


ARQ gives:

-----------------
| x   | v   | w |
=================
| :x2 | :z2 |   |
| :x1 | :z1 | 2 |
| :x1 | :z1 | 1 |
-----------------

for both these queries under both semantics: declarative and algebra.

	Andy

> 
> 
> 
> [1] http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/DataAccess/
> [2] http://www.w3.org/2006/12/05-dawg-minutes.html
> [3] tel:+1.617.761.6200
> [4] irc://irc.w3.org:6665/dawg
> [5] closed UNSAID issue: 
> http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/DataAccess/issues#unsaid
>

Received on Monday, 11 December 2006 16:09:03 UTC