See also: IRC log
<ericP> last meeting record
kendallclark: propose this as a
... kendallclark sent regrets - needs fixing
<ericP> I just added a list of those present to the minutes we just approved :[[Jeen, Libby_Miller, DanC, EliasT, EricP, SteveH, Sven_Groppe]]
kendallclark: a happy thing
... anything we need to know here?
<kendallclark> what are the constraints on how long CR should last?
danc: it's a good thing. I got
asked how long CR will last
... minimum 2 months
... we chose this minimum
kendallclark: do we need to wait for xquery?
danc: we can't go to rec until they are at PR
<kendallclark> WSDL 2 also a dependency
danc: PR means rec in 6 weeks, sets clear expectations
kendallclark: wsdl2 and xquery are the twop primary dependences on external things - what else? an implementation report? test suite creation / maintenance
danc: we have set ourselves a bar that's higher than typical, we're well ahead with a test suite and have some approved
<kendallclark> Approve the remaining unapproved tests
<kendallclark> Maintain an implementation report, answer questions pursuant to that work
danc: expectation is that we go
through the remaining 120 and approve / reject / modify, a few
at a time; and also the public is reportign implemnattion
experience - we have to answer mains
... basically testcases, questions, marketing
kendallclark: implemnentation report - can it continue to be a wiki page?
danc: material in wiki, report in
... basically an argument to director that have enough implemntations, according to the criteria we made
kendallclark: is the validator rejecting approved testcasese?
andys: I replied. problem is
bnodes in the predicate syntax. the doc was a bit inconsistent
about that and was resolved late on. need to corerect
... tests need removing
kendallclark: propose someone takes an action to remove those
<AndyS> Tests are SyntaxFull/syntax-bnodes-03.rq and SyntaxFull/syntax-bnodes-04.rq
andys: we definitely made that
... finding them
<kendallclark> Auto extraction from rq23?
<AndyS> Discussion: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-dawg/2006JanMar/0318.html
danc: when was this approved?
ericp: probably 2 places - no bnodes in the prediacte and an approved grammar
<EliasT> I found this: http://www.w3.org/2006/02/13-htmltf-irc
danc: this should be colected under the punctuation sysntax
want an action kendall?
<kendallclark> eek, no. not me, not on this ;)
<scribe> ACTION: DanC_lap find decision record for bnodes in predicate [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2006/04/11-dawg-minutes.html#action01]
<scribe> ACTION: DanC_lap to find decision record for bnodes in predicate [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2006/04/11-dawg-minutes.html#action02]
<DanC_lap> action -2
<DanC_lap> ACTION: find decision record for bnodes in predicate [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2006/04/11-dawg-minutes.html#action03]
kendallclark: if we approve a document that has a grammar in it - implicit decision at least
<kendallclark> Found an inconsistency in the document re: casting illegal lexical forms and IRIs/anyURI
andys: I think we found an inconsistency. one issue steve brought up as casting illegal lexical forms, the other was iris and anyurio
kendallclark: what does it need?
ericp: illegal lexical forms - we
rely on xpaths - guessing it's illegal but we don't take a
stand on it
... test for casting 256 to a byte
<DanC_lap> FILTER int("23.4") > 20
<DanC_lap> type errro
<DanC_lap> FILTER "23.4"^^xsd:int > 20
danc: our spec doesn't deleetgate to xpath / xquery there does it?
<DanC_lap> ^ not sure about 2nd case there
<kendallclark> ACTION EricP to figure out what our spec says re: casting illegal lexical forms
<DanC_lap> the relevant issue is "valueTesting"; pls include that in the subject of relevant email
<ericP> RDF typed literals passed as arguments to these functions and operators are mapped to XML Schema typed values with a string value of the lexical form and an atomic datatype corresponding to the datatype IRI. The returned typed values are mapped back to RDF typed literals.
<EliasT> ACTION: EricP to figure out what our spec says re: casting illegal lexical forms [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2006/04/11-dawg-minutes.html#action04]
ericp: guessing we don't say what happens there
<DanC_lap> I think our spec has a hole here.
ericp: we don't say what happens when there isn;t a corresponing xsd data type
<DanC_lap> this looks like sufficient information to re-open valueTesting, unfortunately
ericp: we could throw a type errror there for example
danc: it has been the chair's perogative to open the issue and it needs the wg to make a decision in order to close it
kendallclark: as acting chair today it looks like there's enough tehre that the wg needs to make a decision
kendallclark: we have to decide as a group how often we want to meet now
<Zakim> ericP, you wanted to propose we postpone this agendum until things quiet down
ericp: don't think we can make this decision now, need a quiet week
danc: if you want things to get quieter, meet less often
libby: would like to meet less often, fwiw
<kendallclark> dan notes the cost to meeting less often, swapping in, etc
danc: if you meet less often, there's a cost to swapping back in; but cost to meeting often too, time, agendas etc
kendallclark: expect to meet next week, so no differnce today
elias: not sure, depend on the
todos that are leftf. shorten the meetings?
... 30-45 mins?
<Souri> I prefer meeting less often, but same duration as now
danc: more for the chair, less for others
andys: would like to get towards
meetign every 2 weeks but not there yet
... it's the chair's call
kendallclark: might be a few more meetings to change chair, but after that maybe later
souri: meeting less often but
keep the duration the same
... an hour or so is fine - once we're swapped in
<DanC_lap> (in order for shorter meetings to work well, agenda items have to be prepared better in email.)
kendallclark: leaning to meet less often but not yet
kendallclark: useful to maintain
impl report in wiki form
... saw some gaps lately, ned to keep it up to date
... we talked about this earlier though
<DanC_lap> (the report itself http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/DataAccess/imp39 is mostly pointers into the wiki and the test suites)
danc: at one point steve harris took an action to make a working draft out the test materials, not sure what's happened there, but it would be nice to have
kendallclark: just a wg draft or a note or just written up some place
danc: any of those, the readme doesn't quite do it for me
danc: it doesn't say "hello
gentle reader, I'm going to talk nice to you"
... redame is mildly friendlier
kendallclark: copy the readme into the file?
danc: needs hacking into the makefile
ericp: not sure how it
... needs 3store
danc: jeen also knows how to do it
kendallclark: I'd like a doc too; let's put this back on the agenda when jeen /steve is back
danc: 2 bars: can people run the tests? (seems ok) and does it encourage new people to try (no)
kendallclark: woudl like people to submit tests too, though we would have to approve them
kendallclark: not sure of the status here?
ericp: still needs to do actions on mimetype registration
danc: we didn't do LC before CR
but we could on UC&R before PR
... we know that people want to be able to query lists, but this isn't in the UC&R. if we did a LC, people could say this
... we couldcoontinue on the current path or open it up a bit more
kendallclark: would like to be guided by what owl did, UC&R very useful, would like to make it more visible
andys: be a good idea to try and capture the things we haven't covered; not sure LC for UC&R is the way to go there - sounds like saying 'we haven;t finished'
kendallclark: could be messy
danc: some experimental implementations of this
ericp: andys has one, ericp has one
kendallclark: let's take this decision when we have a fuller house. need to be plumper
andys: when we went to CR, some
of the ourstanding dissent was in UC&R
... e.g. dissent on optional
... network inference
andys: wasn't sure what it meant to do a LC with outstanding dissent
ericp: a msg a long time ago where ericp proposed a modification to the operators - numerical equalisty symbol is the same as test for same rdf term. same rdf term = same node is easy
<DanC_lap> (re JSON, I think EricP has an action to publish it, which continues without discussion in today's meeting)
ericp numerical equality depends on degree of support for numerics (case was roman numeral)
<LeeF> (thanks, DanC_lap)
<kendallclark> hmm, i think there may have been 1 or 2 issues that Andy and I didn't agree on from his review...
scribe: simple implementation get a false, better get a true; can;t distinguish between that and rdf equality
andy: thought we decided not equal on 2 terms is as open world as possible - onlty reurns true if it definitely knows they are not the same
ericp: [missed it]
andys: boolean, lexical in upper and lower case - this case equals returns false.
ericp: 2 issues numerical equals
can give you a type error, same as wil not ...
... if it doesn't understand my boollean then it does an rdf equals; if it does, a numeric equals
<DanC_lap> (this is all yet more reason to re-open valueTesting)
ericp: separate syntax they would
get a type error if the implementation did not understand what
a boolean was, and the not equals would do the right
... do you want to pick holes in my message?
<-- this one
ericp: my thesis is that it
answers this question
... if they thing they're doing a numerica euqals, it falls through to a term equals and they get a false, then this is a failure. if separate those two syntaxes, get better errors
andys: don't agree...big trouble - same numeric with different lexical forms, different effects
<Zakim> DanC_lap, you wanted to say that I think I kinda screwed up the last time we closed valueTesting; I was supportive of proposals along the lines that Andy recalls (open world) but
andys: what about string equals?
ericp: implicit in mail message,
just stays the same as before
... only changes term equals
kendallclark: have we opened valuetesting properly?
kendallclark: propose we meet
next week 14.30Z
... volunteer scribe?
<EliasT> I'll do it.
<EliasT> that was rigged.
kendallclark: scribe next week: eliast