- From: Souripriya Das <SOURIPRIYA.DAS@oracle.com>
- Date: Tue, 2 Mar 2010 06:41:19 -0800 (PST)
- To: <public-rdf-dawg@w3.org>
Regrets for today's meeting ... I got a conflicting meeting at 10 EST. -- Souri. ----- Original Message ----- From: steve.harris@garlik.com To: lee@thefigtrees.net Cc: public-rdf-dawg@w3.org Sent: Monday, March 1, 2010 11:52:21 AM GMT -05:00 US/Canada Eastern Subject: 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 Tuesday, 2 March 2010 14:43:33 UTC