- From: Sandro Hawke <sandro@w3.org>
- Date: Tue, 24 Jan 2012 08:52:43 -0500
- To: Lee Feigenbaum <lee@thefigtrees.net>
- Cc: SPARQL Working Group <public-rdf-dawg@w3.org>
Regrets for at least the first half. Once a month the eGov IG and SPARQL conflict, on their current schedules. -- Sandro On Tue, 2012-01-24 at 08:37 -0500, Lee Feigenbaum wrote: > Apologies for the very late agenda. A bit of a miscommunication between > us chairs. > > Last week's minutes are at: http://www.w3.org/2009/sparql/meeting/2012-01-17 > > Today I'd like to discuss: > > * Test approvals > * The implementation report at > http://www.w3.org/2009/sparql/implementations/ shows tests that are / > are not approved > * I'd like to go over this, and propose approving all tests that are > passed by both ARQ and RDF::Query. > * We can then focus on tests that are failed by one or the other or > not run by both. > > * CSV/TSV > * A brief mail thread at > http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-dawg/2011JulSep/0075.html > * We approved test cases in > http://www.w3.org/2009/sparql/meeting/2011-08-16, with a bit of > discussion about the difference between the formats (CSV is values only, > TSV has full term information) > * I'd like to at least discuss this: if I'm the only person > uncomfortable with the two formats, then I'll let it go... > > > Lee > > >
Received on Tuesday, 24 January 2012 13:52:56 UTC