- 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