See also: IRC log
Minutes for April 10 recorded at http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-dawg/2007AprJun/att-0012/2007-04-10-dawg-minutes.html approved by the Chair and seconded by Jeen.
Minutes for April 17 recorded at http://www.w3.org/2007/04/17-dawg-minutes.html need to amended to show Andy's regrets. So amended, they were approved by the Chair and seconded by Jeen.
Next meeting 2007-May-1. Scribe volunteer: Jeen.
LeeF: Any additions to the agenda?
EricP: langMatches needs to be added.
<LeeF> ACTION: ericP to try running DanC's comment-tracking script(s) [DONE] [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2007/04/24-dawg-minutes.html#action01]
<LeeF> ACTION: jeen to go through and identify out-of-date tests that shouldn't be migrated to data-r2 (after ericP commits batch updates to tests) [DONE] [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2007/04/24-dawg-minutes.html#action02]
<LeeF> ACTION: ericP to respond http://www.w3.org/mid/4617D68D.firstname.lastname@example.org [DONE] [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2007/04/24-dawg-minutes.html#action03]
<LeeF> ACTION: EricP to run the yacker tool over and annotate the existing tests [CONTINUES] [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2007/04/24-dawg-minutes.html#action04]
<LeeF> ACTION: ericP to get in touch with SteveH re: setting up an environment to generate an Overview page for tests in data-r2 a la http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/DataAccess/tests/ [CONTINUES] [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2007/04/24-dawg-minutes.html#action05]
<LeeF> ACTION: ericP, jeen, or LeeF to update http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/DataAccess/tests/README with info on possible results format and on changes to manifest and test vocabularies [CONTINUES] [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2007/04/24-dawg-minutes.html#action06]
<LeeF> ACTION: ericP to respond to Jeremy Carroll's comments re: langMatches [CONTINUES] [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2007/04/24-dawg-minutes.html#action07]
<LeeF> ACTION: LeeF or EliasT to reply to Bjoern regarding (not) POSTing application/sparql-query documents [CONTINUES] [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2007/04/24-dawg-minutes.html#action08]
<LeeF> ACTION: LeeF to remember that the wee, lost filter tests should be put [CONTINUES] [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2007/04/24-dawg-minutes.html#action09]
<LeeF> ACTION: jeen to mark these 22 approved tests as approved [DONE] [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2007/04/24-dawg-minutes.html#action10]
We have a new member, Chimezie Ogbuji.
<AndyS> Hi there!
<LeeF> Alan Ruttenberg's message
<iv_an_ru> No problem for me and no preferences, so decide as it
LeeF: The situation is different from how it appears in the agenda. Alan's message in the comments list asks whether digits might be allowed immediately to the right of the : in SPARQL qnames.
<jeen> example: foo:1bar
LeeF: Concerned about schedule and hesitant and anything that risks it. However, have been advised that might be able to pass it without requiring a new Last Call.
<chimezie> Support for syntax beyond QNames towards CURIEs (perhaps) seems like a good idea to me (niavely WRT schedule)
<iv_an_ru> Alan uses Virtuoso so I'm biased and I'll vote for a decision that is most convenient for Alan :)
LeeF: Would like to gauge the technical merit with the WG.
SimonR:I'd provisionally oppose it because it can't be serialized into RDF/XML.
<chimezie> Doesn't have to depend on CURIEs per se
<AndyS> Only issue I can see is around "ex:2" which is (now) two tokens and becomes one but I think that still only turns illegal syntax into legal. I can't find a legal to illegal query transformation.
Chime: URLs that have escape characters that aren't allowed at the end of a qname. E.g. %
<chimezie> % characters
<chimezie> assuming base of <urn:foo:bar/Base> what is the QName
<ericP> i.e. all of xpointer has this problem
<LeeF> AndyS: We call them "prefixed name" because they are not the same as XML QNames
AndyS: Prefer not to mention XML QNames; we should rather talk of "prefixed names" which are not the same thing.
SimonR: If we have a CONSTRUCT template with one of these, then it can't be serialized into RDF/XML
AndyS: We're already in that situation though
<chimezie> The workaround (for the query author) of course, is to use the expanded form
<LeeF> Or to use BASE sometimes? :)
<iv_an_ru> Expanded forms result in too much typos :|
LeeF: Seems to be enough support to go ahead; will consult Ivan and see about getting it on next week's agenda.
AndyS: EricP, do you have any ideas about the politics around CURIEs? EricP: Nope!
AndyS: Not in favor of mentioning CURIEs; just modify our own definitions to be more accommodating.
Jeen: The tests we marked
approved have been officially marked. Also, sent an email: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-dawg/2007AprJun/0028.html
... went through the tests to see what the status was, marked them all as either out of date, already moved, or to be moved/examined.
... Most interesting ones are the tests regarding sorting, and i18n.
... All need to be eyeballed and have judgements made about whether to discard, rewrite, etc.
AndyS: How much coverage do we have over the spec?
Jeen: In the new suite, nowhere near full coverage yet. Still many of the old tests are close to up-to-date; once those are moved, good coverage of the inportant features of the language. Most doubtful area is RDF semantics, as a result of major editorial changes.
LeeF: Eric, what is yacker's potential...?
EricP: Hoping to be able to run yacker, then XQuery to automate much of this.
<ericP> <tests><test name='...'>... xml tree for test </test><test ...
<LeeF> 4 regex tests
LeeF: We have the 4 regex tests above validated by several sources. Any else had a look at these?
<iv_an_ru> They were running by my automated test suite so they're OK for me. But I did not even look at them by eyes.
<LeeF> PROPOSE to approve the 4 tests in http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-dawg/2007AprJun/0018.html
<LeeF> ericP: second
approved with no objections or abstentions.
<LeeF> ACTION: LeeF to mark the 4 regex tests approved [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2007/04/24-dawg-minutes.html#action11]
LeeF: EricP, would you like to speak about the langMatches issue?
EricP: Jeremy Carroll points out that originally langMatches was presumed to be defined by RFC 3066, now supplanted by RFC 4647. We forgot to specify which one in the spec. Basic and extended language codes make a difference. Do we want to identify basic, but also have tests prohibiting extended langMatches?
AndyS: The differences are quite obscure, related to the script a language is in.
LeeF: Seems like a good thing to test, but we're not obligated to do so.
EricP: Favors testing it.
LeeF: Invites Eric to write up a test for it. EricP: Okay.
<LeeF> ACTION: ericP to write a test showing that langMatches doens't do extended matching [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2007/04/24-dawg-minutes.html#action12]
EliasT: WSDL WG suggested that we propose our own non-XML extension. They wanted to know whether we wanted to raise an issue about it; we didn't want to hold them up.
LeeF: Guess we'll probably not pursue this for lack of motivation.
<scribe> ACTION: EliasT or LeeF to reply to Bjoern w.r.t. application/sparql-query [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2007/04/24-dawg-minutes.html#action13]
SimonR: I'm definitely not going to be there.
<iv_an_ru> I'm at www2007 iff I get visa.
<jeen> not me unfortunately
<Souri> *not* me
EliasT won't be.
<iv_an_ru> Orri Erling is there for sure.
LeeF, EricP and Orri Erling for certain, Ivan a possibility.
LeeF: Prefer not to miss a week this close to the finish line, so will have a telecon as usual.
<LeeF> last call comment tracking
LeeF: Shows which threads are closed, waiting, contact points, etc.
<jeen> nice and short, that overview
LeeF: Coordination group notes that given the history of this group, ought to review comments from previous LC and see whether they should be reopened. Awaiting sufficient insomnia to tackle that....
AndyS: Re Pérez et al's work on SPARQL semantics, thinks it was cited in the informative sections of the document.
<LeeF> ACTION: LeeF to mark the FROM * / FROM NAMED * thread as [CLOSED] [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2007/04/24-dawg-minutes.html#action14]
Chime: Satisfied with the response to his LC comment -- LeeF to officially reply and close it.
LeeF: Going forward, resolve the
qname thing, seem to have responded to all the LC comments. We
have a good shot about being ready to propose the move to CR
next week or two.
... Any further issues?
EricP: RIF Core went to WD1. Anyone want to look at this?
Chime: Might be interested in looking at it if it was clear what the relevance was....
Chime is curious enough to give it a look, but would like guidance on what to look for.
SimonR: The relationship between RIF and DAWG is *probably* similar to SPARQL and extended entailment regimes like OWL, etc.