Re: SPARQL WG Agenda - March 2, 2010

I have to send regrets for this telecon unfortunately. I have a  
conflicting meeting at a remote site.

- Steve

On 1 Mar 2010, at 16:10, Lee Feigenbaum wrote:

> See http://www.w3.org/2009/sparql/wiki/Agenda-2010-03-02.
>
>    *  Date of Call: Tuesday March 02, 2010
>    * Time of Call: 15:00 UK, 10:00 (East US)
>    * Dial-In #: +1.617.761.6200 (Cambridge, MA)
>    * Dial-In #: +33.4.89.06.34.99 (Nice, France)
>    * Dial-In #: +44.117.370.6152 (Bristol, UK)
>    * Participant Access Code: 77277# (SPARQ)
>    * IRC Channel: irc.w3.org port 6665 channel #sparql ([irc:irc.w3.org:6665/sparql 
> ])
>    * Web-based IRC (member-only): http://www.w3.org/2001/01/cgi-irc  
> (Firefox IRC addon: chatzilla)
>    * Duration: 60 minutes
>    * Chair: Lee Feigenbaum
>    * Scribe: sandro (Scribe List)
>    * Link to Agenda: http://www.w3.org/2009/sparql/wiki/Agenda-2010-03-02
>
> [edit] Agenda
>
>    * Admin
>          o PROPOSED: Approve minutes at http://www.w3.org/2009/sparql/meeting/2010-02-23
>          o Next meeting: 2010-03-09 @ 15:00 UK / 10:00 EST (scribe:  
> Souri)
>    * Comment handling - see http://www.w3.org/2009/sparql/wiki/ 
> Comments
>    * Liaisons - Is there anything to report of relevance to the  
> SPARQL WG?
>          o RIF WG (Sandro)
>          o RDB2RDF WG (Orri)
>          o eGov (Sandro)
>    * Update - open issues
>          o Plesae come prepared to offer strong feelings on any of  
> these issues. Issues without strong feelings will be left to the  
> wisdom of the editor.
>          o Do we have a resolution to the question of whether blank  
> nodes are permissible in the template for DELETE?
>                + See http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-dawg/2010JanMar/0146.html 
>  & surrounding thread
>          o ISSUE-51 Shall dataset clauses be allowed in SPARQL/Update?
>                + See Lee's message at http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-dawg/2010JanMar/0165.html 
>  and surrounding thread & links
>    * Protocol - open issues
>          o Update fault types - what faults should be defined for  
> update?
>                + I don't believe we've had group discussion of this  
> yet. Right now, the spec includes:
>                      # MalformedUpdate (a la query)
>                      # UpdateRequestRefused (a la query)
>                      # GraphDoesNotExist
>                      # GraphAlreadyExists
>          o Dataset for update - currently the spec allows a dataset  
> to be defined for an update operation. This needs to be brought in  
> line with the Update specification.
>                + This probably follows pretty directly from the  
> resolution of the update dataset operation.
>    * To Last Call
>          o HTTP Update Protocol (next week?)
>          o Property Paths (next week?)
>          o Query
>          o Entailment
>
> [edit] Regrets
>
>    * Axel Polleres
>

-- 
Steve Harris, Garlik Limited
2 Sheen Road, Richmond, TW9 1AE, UK
+44 20 8973 2465  http://www.garlik.com/
Registered in England and Wales 535 7233 VAT # 849 0517 11
Registered office: Thames House, Portsmouth Road, Esher, Surrey, KT10  
9AD

Received on Monday, 1 March 2010 16:52:14 UTC