- From: Eric Prud'hommeaux <eric@w3.org>
- Date: Tue, 3 Mar 2009 14:11:05 -0500
- To: Lee Feigenbaum <lee@thefigtrees.net>
- Cc: 'RDF Data Access Working Group' <public-rdf-dawg@w3.org>
- Message-ID: <20090303191105.GA17424@w3.org>
http://www.w3.org/2009/03/03-sparql-minutes [1]W3C SPARQL Working Group Teleconference 03 Mar 2009 [2]Agenda See also: [3]IRC log Attendees Present LeeF, kasei, AndyS, +1.216.445.aaaa, iv_an_ru, bijan, [Garlik], Chimezie_Ogbuji, john-l, terraces, AxelPolleres, ivan, +656304aabb, ywang4, +1.603.897.aacc, Souri, EricP, Ori, daveNewman, Souri_Das Regrets Chair LeeF Scribe ericP, AxelPolleres [4]minutes from last meeting (Feb 24) Contents * [5]Topics 1. [6]admin 2. [7]logistics 3. [8]liaisons 4. [9]F2F 5. [10]use cases * [11]Summary of Action Items __________________________________________________________________ <scribe> scribenick: AxelPolleres Lee: clarification... Wg is open only to W3C members, although we conduct work in public ... minutes, agenda, wiki are all public and encouraged to be shared. Lee: if you want to keep something non-public, mail us (team/chairs) admin minutes from last time are on the web. PROPOSED: accept minutes from last week <bijan> I just look and they look ok RESOLUTION: minutes from last week approved next meeting: 10am US time, 1400Z lastlog trackbot logistics * [12]SPARQL Wiki * [13]scribe list LeeF: we have intros linked from the wiki ... encourage others to supply intros john-l: chime and i missed last week john-l: 2nd rep for cleveland clinic (cleveburg OH) ... chime and i are working on an impl, hoping to push mods back into spec chime: john-l and i work on a patient registry chime: we've done a hand full of improvements. expect they are useful in general ivan: ivan the elder ... W3C semweb activity lead ... 2nd contact yimin: working in lilly singapore ... working on data integration projects in lilly ... looking for insert/delete, stuff like that souri: Souri Das, Oracle ... was part of DAWG. passionate about it as i expect it to be useful for DI in general liaisons LeeF, we might want a tracker intro under logistics <LeeF> ericP, yes, i agree, but am not prepared to do it at the moment :) AxelPolleres: liasons are supposed to connect us with other groups touching our work ... need liasons with three W3C groups: <bijan> XQuery? AxelPolleres: .. OWL ... .. RIF ... .. RDB2RDF <bijan> HCLS interest group AxelPolleres: any other suggestions? ... would like liason status update at beginnings of meetings <bijan> I think it's overkill to do it each telecon...generally, there's fewer occasions to mention RESOLUTION: Bijan appointed OWL liason <iv_an_ru> Orri and I are in RDB2RDF <AxelPolleres> Bijan: additional liaison XQuery? <bijan> +1 to eric for liasing with HCLS RESOLUTION: ericP appointed HCLS liason RESOLUTION: orri appointed RDB2RDF liason RESOLUTION: axel appointed RIF liason <Zakim> ericP, you wanted to say i have good contact with HCLS <AxelPolleres> Should we "advertise" to them? maybe someone was interested to join us, at least to follow? <AndyS> XQuery are also working on full text search but i was locally muted <AndyS> s/arealoo/are also/ ericP: expect that we will need to touch XQuery if we import more XPath functions F2F LeeF: most folks have tougher travel restrictions than in the past <iv_an_ru> we will need to touch XQuery if we extend XQuery with SPARQL :) LeeF: don't expect to have our four meetings this year ... hope to have a f2f a couple months from now when we settle on our deliverables PROPOSED: host first f2f 5-6May in Cambridge, MA, USA -- (other telecon sites may be amendmants) <bijan> tues are potentially bad <AndyS> May 6,7 is preferrable to me as well. Can make May 5 if necessary <bijan> I can't do tues easily <AxelPolleres> eric: rooms might be a problem 7-8 <bijan> 2 days <chimezie> +1 2 days <ywang4> 2 days should be fine <SteveH> +1 2 days <ivan> 2 days (it is hard to keep up work of that intensity for 3 days) <souri2> May 6-7 is better for me. 2 days. <AndyS> 2 days unless it is clear 3 is needed <bijan> Can't do the 5th <bijan> (most likely) <AxelPolleres> no preference <ywang4> okay, i can try to adapt <iv_an_ru> My US visa has expired so I'm probably missing the f2f. <AxelPolleres> let's tentatively fix 6-7 shall we also set up a questionaire? <SteveH> +q to ask about multi site <ivan> no <bijan> I think chairs decision is fine <Zakim> SteveH, you wanted to ask about multi site <bijan> As long as it's announced far enough in advance...8 weeks <AndyS> I can ask our comms people about a telecon link <bijan> I can ask about access grid access <LeeF> Pick other (U.K. / Europe?) site in the next week or two, please send possibilities to mailing list PROPOSED: host first f2f 6-7May in Cambridge, MA, USA -- (other telecon sites may be amendmants) <souri2> What will be the hours for F2F? <AxelPolleres> [14]http://www.w3.org/2009/sparql/wiki/F2F1 <Zakim> ericP, you wanted to mention video room availability <bijan> Manchester has a room <bijan> HP has one...I've seen it :) use cases <iv_an_ru> use case 1: TPC-H <iv_an_ru> (we pass it in SPARQL :) LeeF: 1st phase: define what features we want to work on ... we're bound to 18 months, including spec, tests, impl report ... likely a very small set. need to settle on them in the next month <AxelPolleres> Please indicate your availability for F2F1 on the wiki page: [15]http://www.w3.org/2009/sparql/wiki/F2F1 LeeF: we're blurring the line between use case and feature ... e.g. "peform aggregate functions", "query over arbitrary length tasks" ... we're not aiming for higher-level use cases, � la "Bob runs a stereo store..." ... looking for examples, implementations <iv_an_ru> use case 2: a graph with Gantt chart, personal calendars and some trivial validation. LeeF: need a champions who will speak in depth about the feature bijan: would we do one req, or stagger them? LeeF: should we write todo list or a priority list? bijan: i like getting things done ... but there's value publicity of a slew of things ... but if we can get stuff out AndyS: knocking off some easy ones would get the community engaged <bijan> +1 to AndyS <SteveH> +1 to AndyS AndyS: i like to work on one thing at a time, and do it properly ivan: short charter, and rec process takes time and energy ... publishing several things in a staggered way could backfire ... bijan, is the idea to pub sparql1,1, 1,2, 1.3? <AxelPolleres> [16]http://www.w3.org/2009/01/sparql-charter.html#deliverables <iv_an_ru> +q bijan, was wondering if we could modularize parts into specs. scribe: e.g. separate owl semantics spec <bijan> The HTML5 spec indicates the stability levels of different *sections* of the spec...which might be good for implementors LeeF: modularizing sounds great, if we can modularize ourselves <AndyS> +1 to modularization (if it does not cause rework just for modulrity) <Zakim> bijan, you wanted to answer ericP: could modularize sections, do tests and impl reports, and package as a spec when we get near the end AxelPolleres: use cases should identify which spec they affect (e.g. protocol, xml results format) ... we've listed deliverables in the charter. we're not bound to that? LeeF: nope. our deliverables will fall out from our use cases iv_an_ru: not sure the final doc should be a single spec, e.g. SPARQL1.1 ... they [features] are more useful when used together ... when i need business intelligence, i need it on everything <ivan> +1 to iv_an_ru LeeF: don't expect us to break up core parts <Zakim> SteveH, you wanted to ask about terminology <bijan> The spec shouldn't have everything it but neither should it be the minimal publishable unit LeeF: don't want to lose interop if all these features are on their own specs <bijan> Rightsizing! SteveH: do we want use cases? <bijan> New features + rationale? SteveH: am nagged by calling features "use cases" <iv_an_ru> yes! SteveH: just want to call them what they are <chimezie> then perhaps we should be a little more explicit in the request for what we want (usecase v.s. feature request) <bijan> (The OWL document is called "new features and rationales" LeeF: agreed. would like to dive straight into features SteveH: when we prioritize, we'll talk about use cases, regardless of whether we write them down <AndyS> While features are natural/obvious this is OK but if one comes along which the WG as a whole finds unobvious, we need to back off to use cases. <LeeF> +1 to AndyS_ <SteveH> +1 AxelPolleres: template rationale: thought the features we want to add should be driven by practical examples <iv_an_ru> use cases should be written down at least in our wiki, if not in final docs, because they demonstrate how features "interoperate". <bijan> Use cases doesn't exhaust...e.g., implementability are also considerations AxelPolleres: had in mind to merge use cases in the 2nd phase ... good feature requests often have a use case around them <iv_an_ru> Let's think that everything is implementable :) <bijan> So, new feature: "Awesome feature"; rationale: "here's the intuition", "here's the implementation considerations", "here's some use cases" AxelPolleres: if you a system with .e.g aggregates, add you syntax to that feature <bijan> Are we all registered in the wiki? If not what do we do? <SteveH> +1 to calling the features and having a usecase subsection LeeF: let's call them features (tweak the template), add a section for use cases under each feature, and have example syntaxes for the feature <LukeWM> +1 to that too <ywang4> will go offline shortly, have fun :) APPROVED: rename "use cases" to "features" <bijan> Did I miss the in <bijan> structiosn for getting on the wiki? <bijan> Oh. Ewwwww <LeeF> I'll send a bunch about this in email <Zakim> AndyS, you wanted to ask about outside contributions AndyS: what about folks who are not in the group, but plan to join ... ? LeeF: would like folks to send to public-rdf-dawg-comments <bijan> +1 to open solicitation <SteveH> risks a lot of work sorting out duplicates AndyS: danger of opening floodgate <SteveH> but still +1 <bijan> We can always say "no" :) <LeeF> I'll take the responsibility for sorting out dupes :-) <bijan> No specification without championiation! <iv_an_ru> We can invite people to read the wiki before (re)submitting proposals :) <LeeF> iv_an_ru +1 <AxelPolleres> heavy echo <bijan> ta ta <AxelPolleres> scribenick: AxelPolleres Ivan: we can allow input from those who intend to join. Lee: Will sned an email on the list to gather as many features as we can by next week. <iv_an_ru> Even more, implementation providers may announce in their support mailing lists that they collect wishes for SPARQL 2.0 and act as proxies. <AndyS> SPARQL 1.1 please. Not 2.0. It's incremental! Lee: Is it appropriate to list that on the blog as well. <SteveH> +1 to SPARQL 1.1 Ivan: sure. <iv_an_ru> ok, SPARQL 1.1 Ivan: Next week will be messy, since meeting is one hour earlier!!! <SteveH> bye meeting adjourned <LeeF> AxelPolleres, do you want to try to follow the scribe instructions, or would you like me to? Summary of Action Items [NEW] ACTION: LeeF to see if the SPARQL tracker is setup correctly [recorded in [17]http://www.w3.org/2009/03/03-sparql-minutes.html#action01] [End of minutes] __________________________________________________________________ Minutes formatted by David Booth's [18]scribe.perl version 1.133 ( [19]CVS log) $Date: 2009/03/03 16:26:38 $ References 1. http://www.w3.org/ 2. http://www.w3.org/2009/sparql/wiki/Agenda-2009-03-03 3. http://www.w3.org/2009/03/03-sparql-irc 4. http://www.w3.org/2009/sparql/meeting/2009-02-24 5. http://www.w3.org/2009/03/03-sparql-minutes#agenda 6. http://www.w3.org/2009/03/03-sparql-minutes#item01 7. http://www.w3.org/2009/03/03-sparql-minutes#item02 8. http://www.w3.org/2009/03/03-sparql-minutes#item03 9. http://www.w3.org/2009/03/03-sparql-minutes#item04 10. http://www.w3.org/2009/03/03-sparql-minutes#item05 11. http://www.w3.org/2009/03/03-sparql-minutes#ActionSummary 12. http://www.w3.org/2009/sparql/wiki 13. http://www.w3.org/2009/sparql/wiki/Scribe_List 14. http://www.w3.org/2009/sparql/wiki/F2F1 15. http://www.w3.org/2009/sparql/wiki/F2F1 16. http://www.w3.org/2009/01/sparql-charter.html#deliverables 17. http://www.w3.org/2009/03/03-sparql-minutes.html#action01 18. http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2002/scribe/scribedoc.htm 19. http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/2002/scribe/ -- -eric office: +1.617.258.5741 32-G528, MIT, Cambridge, MA 02144 USA mobile: +1.617.599.3509 (eric@w3.org) Feel free to forward this message to any list for any purpose other than email address distribution. There are subtle nuances encoded in font variation and clever layout which can only be seen by printing this message on high-clay paper.
Received on Tuesday, 3 March 2009 19:11:14 UTC