- From: Lee Feigenbaum <feigenbl@us.ibm.com>
- Date: Mon, 19 Feb 2007 18:56:19 -0500
- To: public-rdf-dawg@w3.org
Most of our business this week relates to the test suite. We continue to progress towards Last Call, and we'll spend a bit of time talking about how to get there from where we are now. Lee 0. Convene [1]RDF Data Access WG meeting of Tuesday, 20 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: @@ (Elias had volunteered but then sent regrets) + Regrets: Souri, EliasT + roll call + approve 13 Feb minutes [2] + next meeting 27 Feb., @@ recruit scribe + agenda comments? 1. Review ACTION Items These action appear DONE: 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: Elias to add wording for PROPOSED: ed(The SPARLQ Protocol does not derefrence query URIs so 5.1.3 does not apply. Per 5.1.4, services must define their own base URI, which may be the service invocation URI.) ACTION: EricP to run the yacker tool over and annotate the existing tests ACTION: LeeF to remember that the wee, lost filter tests should be put ACTION: Lee to talk to protocol editors re: POSTing application/sparql-query 2. Test suite Jeen moved some query evaluation tests to the new testing environment... http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-dawg/2007JanMar/0080.html ...and Andy corrected a typo and reports that ARQ passes the tests. http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-dawg/2007JanMar/0081.html Please try to take a look at these tests in advance so that we can approve them. Eric proposed a syntax test similar to what we approved last week to note that OPTIONAL clauses break up BGPs. He also suggested similar tests for the GRAPH keyword. http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-dawg/2007JanMar/0079.html I'd like to also discuss and approve these tests if possible. 3. rq25 status and reviews We've made more progress on reviews and responses to reviews this week: + Souri on placement of '.' in SPARQL queries: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-dawg/2007JanMar/0088.html + AndyS incorporates Simon's first batch of feedback: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-dawg/2007JanMar/0086.html 4. protocol status The protocol document has not changed much since our previous last calls. Does anyone want to do a review of it prior to publishing a LC draft? 5. Road to Last Call What does our schedule look like from here? Perhaps we can pencil in a date on which we hope to make a decision to publish last call drafts? 6. Minimal test suite? Simon suggested several 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 at the time, 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. In general this is a standing agenda item pending time and a good phone connection for Simon. [1] http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/DataAccess/ [2] http://www.w3.org/2007/02/13-dawg-minutes
Received on Monday, 19 February 2007 23:56:30 UTC