See also: IRC log
kendallclark: little email traffic for 2 weeks leads to a short agenda each week
also: http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/DataAccess/rq23/rq24-algebra.html
<kendallclark> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-dawg/2006OctDec/att-0167/21-dawg-minutes.html
RESOLVED to accept the minutes of Nov 21.
Next meeting: Dec 4th. Kendall, AndyS, PatH, EricP available.
<Scribe> Scribe next time: EricP
<kendallclark> ACTION: ericP to bring up test on bags for next meeting. [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2006/11/28-dawg-minutes.html#action01]
[DONE]
<Scribe> ACTION: ericP to seek clarification on http://www.w3.org/mod/20061110085518567.00000002912@bmacgregor1 [CONTINUES] [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2006/11/28-dawg-minutes.html#action03]
<kendallclark> ACTION: KendallC to close formsOfDistinct issue [CONTINUES] [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2006/11/28-dawg-minutes.html#action04]
<kendallclark> ACTION: PatH to review the proposed tests in http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-dawg/2006JulSep/0169 and say yay or nay [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2006/11/28-dawg-minutes.html#action05]
ACTION: PatH to draft replacement vanilla entailment section for WG consideration [CONTINUES] [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2006/11/28-dawg-minutes.html#action06]
<AndyS> Related : http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-dawg/2006OctDec/0140.html
<kendallclark> ACTION: KendallC to remember that the wee, lost filter tests should be put to the question (re: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-dawg/2006OctDec/0099.html ) [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2006/11/28-dawg-minutes.html#action07]
kendallclark: An output of the WG
... issue is now where we are in process terms on this. Figure out where we go next.
Lee: does Eric / Andy have a timeline for the QL spec?
KC to EliasT: were you going to work on test suite?
Jeen: (dunno what's wrong) [audio problems] anyway, I'd be happy to spend time on test suite, particularly on isolating a set of tests specifically for use in testing a SPARQL parser implementation and a SPARQL engine implementation. Mostly that means sorting out old tests, etc.
AndyS: timeline - algebra mostly there -need integration into doc.
... discussion on the algebra can be now.
... integration will likely be in the new year.
... test suite process can be done now - most tests not affected.
kendallclark: Need a process owner.
... coordinate work as the chair changes
Lee: will talk to Elias.
AndyS: I've been using a test suite for the algebra and have some new corner cases (just 3) Rest of tests went through fine.
kendallclark: Thinks Jeen is agreeing to be the owner [Jeen's audio problems continue]
kendallclark: wonderful
... Jeen agrees to take the lead.
<EliasT> I was working on the "protocol" test suite and be of help to jeen as I last recalled.
<LeeF> AndyS, when you say "rest of tests", what exactly do you mean? (considering that some tests seem to be completely broken?)
<LeeF> All the DAWG tests I think are valid (approved and unapproved) + my own.
<LeeF> I see.
<LeeF> ~ 500.
<Jeen> ok but I don't know a deadline
ACTION: Jeen propose test suite process (not do it all). [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2006/11/28-dawg-minutes.html#action08]
<EricP> : http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/DataAccess/tests/#rdfsemantics-bnode-type-var
<kendallclark> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-dawg/2006OctDec/0164.html
<Zakim> AndyS, you wanted to ask Pat about existentials and counting
<AndyS> Data: { :a :p 1. :a :p 2 .}
<AndyS> Query: ?a :p []
<AndyS> Q is whether you get one answer or two?
<AndyS> Query: ?a :p ?v
<EricP> :a or :a, :a
... (compare to (:a 1) vs, (:a 1),(:a 2))
<LeeF> What do current implementations do? (Mine treats bnodes as unprojected variables.)
EricP: mine does as well
<jeen> That's what we do as well
<AndyS> ARQ can do either - but would like a decision :-)
<PatH> instinct - get two
<LeeF> ARQ is so wishy-washy ;-)
<LeeF> I wonder who (specific orgs or general communities) will object to treating blank nodes as unprojected variables -- Will the DL community object to that?
<kendallclark> (I don't think it will.)
<AndyS> I think we are defining for simple entailment only. DL replaces the whole of BGP matching with what it wants. There is no overall constraints on dups.
<kendallclark> (well, it won't if that can be made compatible w/ sparql-dl, which doesn't exist yet except in people's heads)
<AndyS> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-dawg/2006OctDec/0140
EricP: +1 on duplicates for many reasons
<PatH> duplicates make no difference to semantics.
<AndyS> ... reports Bijan would be happy with that [ISWC conversation](absence of DISTINCT)
<kendallclark> hears agreement
EricP: perhaps approve the test first
<kendallclark> first or second, no matter, i think
<AndyS> This editor is informed by the consensus heard
<AndyS>will try to incorporate Jorge's style of approach: will wait for Pat's text.
PROPOSED: approve http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/DataAccess/tests/#rdfsemantics-bnode-type-var
<LeeF> Seconded.
<jeen> Seconded
EricP: steve and andy have both tried it in their impls
... or at least, that's the feedback i got a while ago
<AndyS> Looks OK to me (scanning the HTML)
RESOLVED to accept test case
<kendallclark> 0 abstentions or objections
AndyS: Am happy with structure. looking for comments on the design
<AndyS> http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/DataAccess/rq23/rq24-algebra.html
EricP: i think i can fix the last query publication CSS (lcoal.css)
<AndyS> CSS changes don't change the semantics :-)
<LeeF> ACTION: LeeF to review http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/DataAccess/rq23/rq24-algebra.html [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2006/11/28-dawg-minutes.html#action09]
<jeen> uhm.... (closes eyes, takes deep breath) yes, action me.
ACTION: Jeen review rq24-algebra [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2006/11/28-dawg-minutes.html#action10]
+1 to adjourn
ADJOURN
<AndyS> Meet next time - one week's time - Eric to scribe