IRC log of dawg on 2006-12-19

Timestamps are in UTC.

14:20:33 [RRSAgent]
RRSAgent has joined #dawg
14:20:34 [RRSAgent]
logging to
14:20:40 [LeeF]
zakim, this will be dawg
14:20:40 [Zakim]
ok, LeeF; I see SW_DAWG()9:30AM scheduled to start in 10 minutes
14:20:51 [LeeF]
Meeting: DAWG Weekly
14:20:54 [LeeF]
Char: LeeF
14:20:56 [LeeF]
Scribe: ericP
14:21:01 [LeeF]
Regrets: kendallclark
14:21:27 [LeeF]
14:21:38 [LeeF]
agenda+ Convene
14:21:44 [LeeF]
agenda+ Review ACTION Items
14:21:51 [LeeF]
agenda+ Test suite process
14:21:59 [LeeF]
agenda+ rq24 status and timetable
14:27:59 [sdas2]
sdas2 has joined #dawg
14:29:42 [LeeF]
zakim, code?
14:29:42 [Zakim]
the conference code is 7333 (tel:+1.617.761.6200), LeeF
14:30:02 [Zakim]
SW_DAWG()9:30AM has now started
14:30:09 [Zakim]
14:30:13 [LeeF]
zakim, IBMCambridge is me
14:30:13 [Zakim]
+LeeF; got it
14:30:24 [Zakim]
14:31:37 [Zakim]
14:31:39 [AndyS]
zakim, ??P2 is me
14:31:39 [Zakim]
+AndyS; got it
14:32:47 [ericP]
just a sec, still on another call
14:32:51 [ericP]
2 mins
14:33:14 [Zakim]
14:34:52 [Zakim]
14:35:12 [ericP]
zakim, ??P6 is me
14:35:12 [Zakim]
+ericP; got it
14:35:53 [SimonR]
Eric, we can't hear you on the phone.
14:36:10 [AndyS]
zakim, who is on the phone?
14:36:10 [Zakim]
On the phone I see LeeF, sdas2, AndyS, SimonR, ericP
14:36:47 [LeeF]
14:38:28 [ericP]
14:38:38 [ericP]
zakim, take up agendum 1
14:38:38 [Zakim]
agendum 1. "Convene" taken up [from LeeF]
14:39:18 [ericP]
next meeting: 2 Jan
14:39:36 [SimonR]
I'll volunteer.
14:39:50 [ericP]
next scribe: SimonR
14:40:19 [ericP]
zakim, next agendum
14:40:19 [Zakim]
agendum 2. "Review ACTION Items" taken up [from LeeF]
14:41:20 [ericP]
ACTION: KendallC to close formsOfDistinct issue [CONTINUED]
14:41:31 [ericP]
ACTION: KendallC to remember that the wee, lost filter tests should be put [CONTINUED]
14:41:47 [ericP]
ACTION: PatH to change the entailment section around to talk about SPARQL first, then more general conditions in a normative appendix [CONTINUED]
14:42:10 [ericP]
ACTION: ericP to seek clarification on [CONTINUED]
14:42:27 [LeeF]
Jeen on the test suite process:
14:42:28 [ericP]
ACTION: EricP to sort out some string literal thing for the operator table [ed: this action is about text for simple literals and xsd:string and text for RDFterm-equal] [CONTINUED]
14:42:46 [ericP]
ACTION: Jeen propose test suite process (not do it all). [DONE]
14:43:08 [ericP] -> Jeen's proposed test suite process
14:43:52 [ericP]
ACTION: LeeF to review rq24-algebra [DONE]
14:44:12 [ericP] -> LeeF's review of rq24 algebra
14:44:27 [ericP]
zakim, take up next agendum
14:44:27 [Zakim]
agendum 3. "Test suite process" taken up [from LeeF]
14:45:23 [ericP]
LeeF: we have lots of unapproved tests that are not distinguished from those next to outdated ones
14:46:18 [ericP]
... we discussed CR exit criteria where we had at least two implementations that implemented each SPARQL "feature"
14:46:58 [ericP]
... assuming still need this, we need to record up front what the set of "features" is
14:47:18 [ericP]
... then assign tests some set of features
14:48:08 [ericP]
SimonR: what do when we have more than one right answer
14:48:45 [LeeF]
ericP: One way to handle it is to avoid tests with more than one answer
14:49:50 [ericP]
SimonR: what about a graph with inference capabilities
14:50:56 [ericP]
LeeF: those tests fall under either SPARQL extensions, or the closed graph is known
14:51:06 [ericP]
14:51:12 [sdas2]
14:51:45 [ericP]
AndyS: want to only test things in SPARQL. not focus on extension points
14:52:22 [ericP]
... would like to put your [ericP's] classified extended SPARQL queries in the back of the queue
14:53:02 [ericP]
... don't want extra-core features on the critical path
14:53:30 [ericP]
LeeF: if i were doing the tests, i would prefer explicit classification
14:54:07 [SimonR]
I'm not complaining about focusing on non-extended SPARQL or only tests which permit only a single correct answer. I'm just checking that we're doing this deliberately and consciously.
14:54:22 [LeeF]
Very deliberately :-)
14:56:28 [ericP]
ericP: i want to make sure that test be able to have more than one feature
14:56:37 [ericP]
... propose that we annotate tests with features
14:57:03 [ericP]
SimonR: we already have URIs for features from the document section headings
14:57:13 [ericP]
ericP: reasonable thesis, but needs testing
14:57:33 [ericP]
LeeF: reluctant to make such a decision without Jeen
14:57:42 [ericP]
Zakim, next agendum
14:57:42 [Zakim]
agendum 4. "rq24 status and timetable" taken up [from LeeF]
14:58:07 [ericP]
LeeF: re protocol test suite, Elias says "no worries"
14:58:27 [AndyS]
s/want to only test/want test core SPARQL first/
14:58:35 [LeeF]
agenda+ test reporting format (to EARL or not to EARL)
14:58:52 [Zakim]
14:58:57 [ericP]
14:59:05 [LeeF]
zakim, who's speaking?
14:59:16 [Zakim]
LeeF, listening for 10 seconds I heard sound from the following: LeeF (54%)
14:59:27 [Zakim]
14:59:32 [Zakim]
14:59:36 [LeeF]
sorry :)
14:59:41 [LeeF]
zakim, code?
14:59:41 [Zakim]
the conference code is 7333 (tel:+1.617.761.6200), LeeF
15:00:13 [Zakim]
15:00:16 [ericP]
i heard lots of hiss, then got booted. assumed hiss must of been my leave music
15:00:50 [LeeF]
Lee's rq24 algebra review:
15:01:04 [ericP]
LeeF: main points:
15:01:16 [ericP]
... 2 snaps up
15:01:27 [ericP]
... need connections to grammar
15:01:42 [AndyS] v1.24
15:01:45 [ericP]
... soln modifiers could be more explicitly tied to concrete syntax
15:02:25 [ericP]
... as a reviewer, endorse adoption into rq24
15:02:53 [ericP]
AndyS: Jeen said he may find time for comments, but no commitment
15:03:24 [ericP]
Souri: hope to review by Jan 9
15:03:45 [ericP]
ACTION: Souri to review by 9 Jan 2007
15:04:20 [ericP]
LeeF: any words from Pat re rq24-algebra?
15:04:35 [ericP]
AndyS: said it looked OK a couple weeks ago.
15:05:07 [ericP]
LeeF: i know of no major issue stumbling block decisions
15:05:19 [ericP]
... need:
15:05:38 [ericP]
... Souri's review
15:05:51 [ericP]
... PatH's entailment text
15:07:00 [ericP]
... decision on algebra around mid Jan
15:07:13 [ericP]
... merge into rq24
15:07:39 [ericP]
... need end to end reviews from WG
15:08:08 [ericP]
... would like LC WD decision around 1st week of Feb
15:08:22 [ericP]
... want a short-as-possible LC, then CR
15:08:35 [ericP]
... then back to CR
15:08:56 [ericP]
... then test suite work and exit criteria
15:09:05 [ericP]
15:09:09 [AndyS]
q+ to ask if that makes LC content assumed to be CR content?
15:09:22 [ericP]
ACTION: LeeF to pester PatH about entailment text
15:10:15 [ericP]
LeeF: will review outstand issues and hope that the new rq24 will address those issues
15:10:41 [ericP]
... for example, FredZ's issues from the end of the summer
15:10:50 [ericP]
... will ask Elias to do the same with the protocol doc
15:11:30 [ericP]
... 2 months ago there were 3 small issues which raised no pulses during a WG meeting
15:11:47 [ericP]
... would like all (3) to go to LC/CR at the same time
15:12:40 [ericP]
... any thoughts on issues that i haven't address?
15:13:04 [AndyS]
HP supports that outline plan.
15:13:05 [ericP]
... speak now or forever hold your peace^H^H^H^H^H^H^H still welcome to raise in the future
15:13:12 [LeeF]
ack AndyS
15:13:12 [Zakim]
AndyS, you wanted to ask if that makes LC content assumed to be CR content?
15:13:40 [ericP]
AndyS: you expect the LC and the CR are as close as possible?
15:14:04 [ericP]
LeeF: yes, as close to byte-wise as the comments will allow
15:14:36 [ericP]
AndyS: summary above indicates the test suite work is serial. can do that stuff in parallel
15:15:35 [ericP]
Zakim, next agendum
15:15:35 [Zakim]
agendum 5. "test reporting format (to EARL or not to EARL)" taken up [from LeeF]
15:17:48 [SimonR]
15:18:49 [ericP] -> pretty EARL pics from an Algae run
15:19:19 [LeeF]
ericP: I'd like to suggest we use EARL as a reporting vocabulary for the results of implementation test runs
15:20:36 [LeeF]
SimonR: What about the XUnit [ed: is that right?] XML format? There are a lot of existing tools that we could use for that.
15:20:42 [ericP]
SimonR: (I think EARL would be cool) speaking as devil's advocate, what about XUnit?
15:21:02 [ericP]
AndyS: are they solving the same problem?
15:21:33 [ericP]
SimonR: report results of runs of tests
15:22:19 [ericP]
NUnit for .net, JUnit for java
15:22:26 [LeeF]
DUnit for DAWG!
15:22:42 [LeeF]
SPUnit for SPARQL!
15:22:44 [LeeF]
ok, sorry, i'm done.
15:23:37 [ericP]
ACTION: SimonR to look at .Unit
15:23:48 [ericP]
15:25:00 [Zakim]
15:25:01 [ericP]
15:25:05 [AndyS]
Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year to everyone from the UK
15:27:05 [Zakim]
15:27:06 [Zakim]
15:27:07 [Zakim]
15:27:07 [Zakim]
15:27:08 [Zakim]
SW_DAWG()9:30AM has ended
15:27:09 [Zakim]
Attendees were LeeF, sdas2, AndyS, SimonR, ericP, [IBMCambridge]
15:27:11 [AndyS]
AndyS has left #dawg
15:27:26 [ericP]
RRSAgent, please draft minutes
15:27:26 [RRSAgent]
I have made the request to generate ericP
15:27:43 [ericP]
RRSAgent, please make log world-visible
15:27:46 [ericP]
15:27:47 [LeeF]
thanks for scribing, ericP!
15:27:56 [ericP]
my first time getting both correct!!!
15:28:09 [ericP]
15:28:10 [LeeF]
clearly a christmas present from the bots
15:28:26 [LeeF]
if (user == ericP || cmd.isCorrectCommand()) doCorrectCommand();
15:29:35 [ericP]
if (user == ericP || cmd.isCorrectCommand()) date == 2006-12-19 ? doCorrectCommand() : messWithEricPzHead();
15:29:57 [LeeF]
15:50:28 [patH]
patH has joined #dawg
15:50:49 [patH]
hey, are we having a telecon now?
15:52:31 [LeeF]
was 9:30-10:30 EST
15:52:33 [AndyS]
We aren't. It was 90 mins ago!
15:53:13 [patH]
Oh. Whooops. Im in Ca, so that was 6.30 am here. Sorry
15:54:03 [AndyS]
We continued your action item.
15:54:34 [LeeF]
Ahh; well, Eric did an admirable job taking minutes, so a quick perusal should catch you up to date. 60,000 foot summary: I'd like to get WG reviews and decisions on spec. text such that we can put out last call working drafts of our specs in the beginning of Februryar, with an eye towards re-entering CR soon after that.
15:55:11 [patH]
ok lee
16:05:39 [AndyS]
AndyS has joined #dawg
17:34:06 [Zakim]
Zakim has left #dawg