Re: Agenda, 6 Feb @ 14:30 UTC

> I want to encourage working group members to continue with their reviews 

> of rq25 so that we can publish a Last Call draft within a week or two.
> 
> Lee
> 
> 
> 0. Convene [1]RDF Data Access WG meeting of Tuesday, 6 February, 2007 
> at 14:30:00 UTC
>          + LeeF chairing
>          + teleconference bridge: tel:+1.617.761.6200 
> tel:+33.4.89.06.34.99 tel:+44.117.370.6152 code:7333
>          + on irc at: irc://irc.w3.org:6665/dawg
>          + Scribe: SimonR
>          + Regrets: EliasT
>          + roll call
>          + 30 Jan minutes (draft at [2], final will appear there soon) 
to 
> approve
>          + next meeting 13 Feb., @@ recruit scribe
>          + agenda comments?
> 
> 1. Review ACTION Items
> 
> These action are DONE:
> 
> ACTION: AndyS to reply to Bob M noting changes in examples in curent 
> algebra
>  -> 
> 
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-dawg-comments/2007Feb/0002.html
> 
> Let's check on the status of the following actions:
> 
> ACTION: AndyS to add text clarifying the prohibition on blank node 
labels 
> in multiple BGPs to rq25
> ACTION: AndyS to clarify the extent of BGPs is not broken up by FILTER 
> clauses and to change production rule name in the grammar
> ACTION: EricP to run the yacker tool over and annotate the existing 
tests
> ACTION: Jeen to mark approved tests as dawg:approved
> ACTION: LeeF to remember that the wee, lost filter tests should be put 
> 
> 
> 2. Test suite
> 
> We have some new syntax tests from Andy reflecting the the blank node 
> label
> and BGP extent decisions made last week. Test cases are in:
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-dawg/2007JanMar/0056.html
> modified by:
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-dawg/2007JanMar/0062.html
> 
> I'd like to approve these, if possible.
> 
> 
> 3. Minimal test suite?
> 
> Simon suggested two weeks ago that:
> 
> """
> I'm somewhat inclined to have a "designed" collection of tests that are 
a 
> roughly minimal coverage of the features.  Those extra tests reduce the 
> chance of a human ever actually reading them, which is highly desirable 
> for correctness and understanding.
> """
> 
> This was mostly discussed on IRC two weeks ago, and I promised an agenda 

> slot to further the discussion last week. I'll keep this around until we 

> have a chance to discuss it.
> 
> 
> 4. rq25 status
> 
> I'd like to check on the status of rq25 reviews.
> 
> 
> 5. protocol status
> 
> @@ I'm going to try to dig up the status on the open protocol issues @@ 

The last protocol work was in October when Kendall, Elias, and I 
identified three outstanding issues:
  http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-dawg/2006OctDec/0082

Of those issues, at the time we identified one of them (the third) as 
requiring WG discussion and a WG decision. Time permitting, let's try to 
discuss this matter in tomorrow's teleconference. 

(In brief, the issue is: should SPARQL protocol endpoints support SPARQL 
queries posted as application/sparql-query?)

> 
> [1] http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/DataAccess/
> [2] http://www.w3.org/2007/01/30-dawg-minutes
>

Received on Tuesday, 6 February 2007 01:12:46 UTC