From SPARQL Working Group
Revision as of 16:23, 17 January 2012 by Pgearon
Please justify/explain all edits to this page, in your "edit summary" text.
14:57:32 <RRSAgent> RRSAgent has joined #sparql 14:57:32 <RRSAgent> logging to http://www.w3.org/2012/01/17-sparql-irc 14:57:34 <trackbot> RRSAgent, make logs world 14:57:34 <Zakim> Zakim has joined #sparql 14:57:36 <trackbot> Zakim, this will be 77277 14:57:36 <Zakim> ok, trackbot; I see SW_(SPARQL)10:00AM scheduled to start in 3 minutes 14:57:37 <trackbot> Meeting: SPARQL Working Group Teleconference 14:57:37 <trackbot> Date: 17 January 2012 14:57:42 <LeeF> zakim, this will be SPARQL 14:57:42 <Zakim> ok, LeeF; I see SW_(SPARQL)10:00AM scheduled to start in 3 minutes 14:57:44 <LeeF> Chair: LeeF 14:57:48 <LeeF> Agenda: test suite 14:57:55 <LeeF> Regrets: Axel, AndyS 14:57:59 <LeeF> Risk: SteveH, Sandro 14:58:06 <LeeF> Regrets: Axel, AndyS, Carlos 14:58:35 <MattPerry> MattPerry has joined #sparql 14:58:42 <Zakim> SW_(SPARQL)10:00AM has now started 14:58:48 <Zakim> +LeeF 15:00:18 <Zakim> +MattPerry 15:00:21 <Zakim> +kasei 15:00:54 <swh> swh has joined #sparql 15:01:11 <Zakim> + +126.96.36.199.aaaa 15:01:27 <Olivier> zakim, aaaa is me 15:01:27 <Zakim> +Olivier; got it 15:01:30 <Zakim> +??P5 15:01:35 <swh> Zakim, ??P5 is me 15:01:35 <Zakim> +swh; got it 15:01:56 <Zakim> +pgearon 15:02:29 <Zakim> +sandro 15:03:05 <LeeF> zakim, who's on the phone? 15:03:05 <Zakim> On the phone I see LeeF, MattPerry, kasei, Olivier, swh, pgearon, sandro 15:03:31 <pgearon> can do that 15:03:35 <LeeF> many thanks 15:03:50 <LeeF> scribenick: pgearon 15:05:05 <pgearon> LeeF: does anyone remember discussion CSV/TSV discussion? (deafening silence) 15:05:08 <bglimm> bglimm has joined #sparql 15:05:46 <Zakim> +??P15 15:05:57 <bglimm> Zakim, ??P15 is me 15:05:57 <Zakim> +bglimm; got it 15:06:02 <bglimm> Zakim, mute me 15:06:02 <Zakim> bglimm should now be muted 15:06:17 <pgearon> LeeF: will not review the CSV/TSV document today 15:07:20 <LeeF> PROPOSED: Approve last week's minutes at http://www.w3.org/2009/sparql/meeting/2012-01-10 15:07:29 <pgearon> LeeF: going to discuss test suite coverage, and make sure there are ACTIONs in place for people to fill in the holes 15:08:19 <LeeF> RESOLVED: Approve last week's minutes at http://www.w3.org/2009/sparql/meeting/2012-01-10 15:08:39 <LeeF> Next meeting is 1/24/2012 at same time and place 15:08:45 <Olivier> regrets 15:09:11 <LeeF> topic: Graph Store Protocol & Service Description 15:09:17 <LeeF> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-dawg/2012JanMar/0030.html 15:09:22 <LeeF> Looking at point #4 15:11:16 <pgearon> kasei: concern that graph store protocol references service description, but SD does not reference the graph store protocol 15:13:01 <pgearon> sandro: don't see a problem with graph store protocol referring to SD, with the SD not knowing anything about it 15:14:57 <pgearon> LeeF: agree that it's OK to say, "this is the vocabulary to use wrt the service description", but in this case section 5.8 of the graph store protocol seems to be talking about getting a different way of getting an SD document that isn't the same as what the SD says - not entirely sure though 15:16:07 <pgearon> LeeF: is the graph store service IRI same or different to graph store IRI? 15:16:21 <pgearon> Sandro: different. May or may not be the same as the endpoint IRI 15:17:16 <kasei> q+ 15:17:53 <LeeF> ack kasei 15:18:02 <pgearon> LeeF: 5.8 in the graph store protocol is saying that the service IRI and store IRIs are the same, which I don't agree with 15:18:31 <pgearon> kasei: concerned that graph store protocol casually dropping OPTIONS as a way to get the SD 15:19:02 <pgearon> kasei: SD language sprinkled around the graph store protocol 15:20:51 <pgearon> LeeF and kasei in agreement on graph store protocol document saying that both IRIs are being treated as the same 15:21:26 <pgearon> LeeF: need to improve the text to show that service IRI and protocol IRI are not necessarily the same, though they may be 15:22:03 <pgearon> sandro: if they're not the same, then if you do a GET on the graph store service IRI then should say what you'd get 15:24:26 <pgearon> kasei: all the discussion is on 5.8 which says "informative" and then uses normative language, so we know that Chimezie will update this 15:25:41 <LeeF> Consensuses (consensi) of this discussion: 15:26:05 <LeeF> * GSP Service IRI is not necessarily the same as the SPARQL Protocol Endpoint IRI 15:26:17 <LeeF> * RFC2119 language needs to be removed from 5.8 15:26:25 <LeeF> * Language needs to be clearer on this distinction 15:26:58 <LeeF> Open questions: 15:27:33 <LeeF> * What happens if the IRIs for GSP Service and the Protocol Endpoint are not the same and you do a GET on the GSP Service IRI? particularly if the deployment doesn't involve a SPARQL endpoint at all? 15:27:49 <LeeF> * Should we remove the recommendation to use OPTIONS for this and just go with GET? 15:28:36 <pgearon> LeeF: won't be able to conclude without chimezie, but hopefully can clear up all the issues for him to work with 15:29:01 <LeeF> Also the example in 5.5 implies the same thing that 5.8 implies about the IRIs, and needs to be made clearer 15:30:45 <LeeF> topic: Test Suites 15:30:53 <LeeF> http://www.w3.org/2009/sparql/wiki/TestSuiteCoverage 15:32:35 <pgearon> LeeF: need tests for errors when evaluating aggregates 15:33:36 <pgearon> LeeF: and positive EXISTS tests 15:33:43 <LeeF> ACTION-531? 15:33:43 <trackbot> ACTION-531 -- Olivier Corby to check Query test cases coverage in terms of errors in aggregate evaluation and positiveEXISTS tests -- due 2011-09-27 -- OPEN 15:33:43 <trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2009/sparql/track/actions/531 15:33:57 <kasei> I can do it. 15:34:06 <kasei> the EXISTS tests 15:34:09 <kasei> oh. ok :) 15:34:17 <LeeF> close ACTION-531 15:34:18 <trackbot> ACTION-531 Check Query test cases coverage in terms of errors in aggregate evaluation and positiveEXISTS tests closed 15:34:26 <LeeF> ACTION: Greg to propose tests for aggregate evaluation errors 15:34:26 <trackbot> Created ACTION-573 - Propose tests for aggregate evaluation errors [on Gregory Williams - due 2012-01-24]. 15:34:35 <LeeF> ACTION: Greg to propose tests for positive use of EXISTS 15:34:35 <trackbot> Created ACTION-574 - Propose tests for positive use of EXISTS [on Gregory Williams - due 2012-01-24]. 15:35:30 <pgearon> LeeF: Update tests - not covered: shortcuts (add/move/copy), load, create 15:36:20 <LeeF> close ACTION-517 15:36:20 <trackbot> ACTION-517 Look into negative evaluation tests and "silent success test" possibility for update tests. closed 15:38:12 <pgearon> LeeF: need someone to look at update tests 15:38:29 <pgearon> MattPerry: can do some of them, but not all. ADD, MOVE, COPY 15:38:36 <LeeF> ACTION: Matt to propose tests for ADD, MOVE, and COPY 15:38:36 <trackbot> Sorry, couldn't find user - Matt 15:38:40 <LeeF> ACTION: Matthew to propose tests for ADD, MOVE, and COPY 15:38:41 <trackbot> Created ACTION-575 - Propose tests for ADD, MOVE, and COPY [on Matthew Perry - due 2012-01-24]. 15:38:56 <kasei> I'm not sure how we could test CREATE in a portable way. 15:39:07 <LeeF> ACTION: Paul to propose tests for LOAD and - if possible - CREATE 15:39:07 <trackbot> Created ACTION-576 - Propose tests for LOAD and - if possible - CREATE [on Paul Gearon - due 2012-01-24]. 15:39:52 <kasei> CREATE already is tested in syntax tests. 15:40:04 <Olivier> Olivier has joined #sparql 15:40:15 <LeeF> ACTION: Axel to propose a negative syntax test for turtle bnodes in DELETE DATA 15:40:16 <trackbot> Created ACTION-577 - Propose a negative syntax test for turtle bnodes in DELETE DATA [on Axel Polleres - due 2012-01-24]. 15:40:22 <kasei> q+ 15:40:37 <pgearon> Sandro: could test CREATE by seeing if it shows up in the Service Description 15:40:39 <LeeF> ack kasei 15:40:58 <Zakim> -sandro 15:40:59 <pgearon> kasei: graphs do not have to show up in the SD (optional) 15:42:02 <pgearon> LeeF: see if we can use the tests from the last WG to test protocol 15:42:15 <pgearon> LeeF: protocol testing will at least stick with action 495 15:42:42 <pgearon> kasei: testing conformance trivial, but can't think how this will fit into current test framework 15:43:19 <pgearon> kasei: thinking of starting with an endpoint URL and get back a response of "yes/no: it conforms / it doesn't conform" 15:43:46 <pgearon> LeeF: wanted something like that for "protocol", but didn't have bandwidth 15:44:35 <pgearon> LeeF: if something like that is constructed then should be usable for both SD testing and protocol testing 15:45:03 <pgearon> LeeF: even if used for just the life of this WG then that will probably the best way to proceed 15:45:10 <LeeF> ACTION: Greg to talk with Lee about putting a test system in place to test endpoints for protocol and service description conformance 15:45:10 <trackbot> Created ACTION-578 - Talk with Lee about putting a test system in place to test endpoints for protocol and service description conformance [on Gregory Williams - due 2012-01-24]. 15:45:26 <bglimm> Zakim, unmute me 15:45:26 <Zakim> bglimm should no longer be muted 15:45:41 <pgearon> LeeF: entailment tests. have a whole bunch, but also some missing ones 15:45:53 <pgearon> bglimm: thinks still has open action to add test cases 15:45:59 <LeeF> close ACTION-547 15:45:59 <trackbot> ACTION-547 Review query 2nd LC as soon as it's ready closed 15:46:10 <LeeF> ACTION-518? 15:46:10 <trackbot> ACTION-518 -- Birte Glimm to add missing test cases to improve http://www.w3.org/2009/sparql/wiki/TestSuiteCoverage#Entailment -- due 2011-08-16 -- OPEN 15:46:10 <trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2009/sparql/track/actions/518 15:46:30 <pgearon> bglimm: need to find the time for these tests 15:46:35 <bglimm> Zakim, mute me 15:46:35 <Zakim> bglimm should now be muted 15:46:53 <pgearon> LeeF: federated query. Some things not covered, but doesn't overly concern me 15:47:58 <pgearon> LeeF: some tests on JSON. Need someone to check if we're missing coverage 15:48:39 <pgearon> LeeF: don't think that protocol and XML format were separated in tests in SPARQL 1 15:49:19 <pgearon> LeeF: letting TSV/CSV ride until AndyS is available 15:49:45 <pgearon> LeeF: any other topics? # SPECIAL MARKER FOR CHATSYNC. DO NOT EDIT THIS LINE OR BELOW. SRCLINESUSED=00000136