- 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