- From: Lee Feigenbaum <lee@thefigtrees.net>
- Date: Tue, 09 Mar 2010 08:08:22 -0500
- To: SPARQL Working Group <public-rdf-dawg@w3.org>
Again, apologies for the delay. http://www.w3.org/2009/sparql/wiki/Agenda-2010-03-09 * Date of Call: Tuesday March 09, 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: Souri (Scribe List) * Link to Agenda: http://www.w3.org/2009/sparql/wiki/Agenda-2010-03-09 [edit] Agenda * Admin o PROPOSED: Approve minutes at http://www.w3.org/2009/sparql/meeting/2010-03-02 o Next meeting: 2010-03-16 @ 14:00 UK / 10:00 EST (scribe: Matt) - NOTE ONE HOUR EARLIER THAN USUAL OUTSIDE OF THE US * 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 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 o Blank nodes in DELETE + See http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-dawg/2010JanMar/0428.html & surrounding thread + Decide between two proposals: # 1. No blank nodes in DELETE template # 2. Blank nodes in DELETE templates act as "wild cards"--effectively variables pre-bound to all RDF terms * Protocol - open issues 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. o Update fault types - what faults should be defined for update? + See Andy's message of http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-dawg/2010JanMar/0432.html -- Does it even make sense to have more than 2 faults when the protocol is mainly bound to HTTP? # MalformedUpdate (a la query) # UpdateRequestRefused (a la query) # GraphDoesNotExist # GraphAlreadyExists * To Last Call o HTTP Update Protocol (next week?) o Property Paths (next week?) o Query o Entailment [edit] Regrets * Chimezie
Received on Tuesday, 9 March 2010 13:08:55 UTC