See also: IRC log
PROPOSED: approve minutes from 1 Aug 2006 as a true record
PROPOSED: meet 15 Aug at 14:30, scribe TDB
ACTION: EricP to respond to PatH's new test
with a proof of whether it's monotonic to extended datatype
support [DONE] [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2006/08/08-dawg-minutes.html#action01]
Note: "proof" of nonmonotonicity in current text
ACTION: KendallClark to reopen punctuationSyntax to take up commas in SELECT clause. CONTINUED [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2006/08/08-dawg-minutes.html#action02]
ACTION: LeeF to make a test case out of the nested GRAPH scenario from DAWG email list CONTINUED [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2006/08/08-dawg-minutes.html#action03]
ACTION: LeeF to To review rq24. CONTINUED [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2006/08/08-dawg-minutes.html#action04]
ACTION: PatH to To write another open world value test to add to Andy's. WITHDRAWN [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2006/08/08-dawg-minutes.html#action05]
ACTION: DanC to review PFPS's comments for more test cases CONTINUED [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2006/08/08-dawg-minutes.html#action06]
ACTION: EricP to turn FredZ's test case sketches into tests. CONTINUED [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2006/08/08-dawg-minutes.html#action07]
<ericP> kendallclark, what is "ACTION: take up new issue concatenated nestedOptional" ???
<kendallclark> a new issue i decided to open the meeting before the June break, which I cannot at this moment describe w/out consulting the meeting minutes from that meeting
I think that "'II'^^roman:numeral = 2" has the same behavoir if backed by either "sop:value-compare(A,B) == -1" or "op:numeric-less-than(A, B)"
<AndyS> "'II'^^roman:numeral = 2" is error if Roman numerals are unknown
<ericP> A = B RDF term RDF term RDFterm-equal(A, B)
<kendallclark> Does anyone have a proposal for leading us out of this? It's starting to seem a bit like a morass...
<patH> if I followed it, this seems to work
<AndyS> I believe sop:value-comapre does it - I'm willing to flesh it out.
<AndyS> It obeys the "every problem needs an extra level of indirection" maxim
<patH> whoops, that was a reference to andys mesage of a few days ago.
number = number
date = date
string = string
IRI = IRI
bNode = bNode
<fred> literal = literal: true or error
<fred> iri = iri: true or false
<fred> bnode = bnode: true or false
<fred> allother cells always false
<AndyS> Yes, Fred - that's the table I was thing of.
<AndyS> bNode = literal (not bNode in query) may be valid
<AndyS> Separate sameLiteral operator.
<AndyS> if we want a syntactic comparision
<AndyS> If you want help with this, do ask - I'm the one keen to have this extensibility so I feel responsible here.
<kendallclark> ACTION: EricP to redraft section 11 to support extensible datatypes [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2006/08/08-dawg-minutes.html#action08]
<AndyS> sop:vaue-compare should return symbols for LE, GT, EQ and NE (or error)
<SteveH> ok, I dont have anything to add to format sem. anyway
<kendallclark> I've also heard problems re: DISTINCT because the spec doesn't really define identity sufficiently rigorously...
<AndyS> DISTINCT does not mean identity because it's separated from the entailment by the algebra.
<AndyS> It is systems that onlt answer BGPs that could do that - in general, there is no connection there.
<kendallclark> distinct requires some notion of identity, separated from entailment, it seems to me
<AndyS> It sort of has - it's term uniqueness.
i am utterly convinced that one of PatH and FredZ may be right
<kendallclark> So we're 1 minute past our expire time :)
<AndyS> Fred -- I think the practical outcome is BGP's need a DISTINCT applied. That's easily doable.