See also: IRC log
<trackbot> Date: 24 January 2012
<scribe> scribenick: mhausenblas
RRSAgent:, draft minutes
PROPOSAL: Accept the minutes of last meeting http://www.w3.org/2012/01/17-RDB2RDF-minutes.html
<ivan> +1
RESOLUTION: Accept the minutes of last meeting http://www.w3.org/2012/01/17-RDB2RDF-minutes.html
Michael: Two REC-Track documents
... R2RML and DM
... http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/rdb2rdf/r2rml/
- R2RML
...
http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/rdb2rdf/directMapping/LC/Overview.html - DM
Ashok: Wondering what happened to the datatype mapping section
<cygri> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdb2rdf-wg/2012Jan/0026.html
Ashok: Did you Richard and Eric discuss and sort out?
Richard: Yes
Eric: Looking at it ATM
(Eric and Richard discuss the datatype mapping section)
Richard: relevant sections are http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/rdb2rdf/r2rml/#datatype-intro
and http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/rdb2rdf/r2rml/#datatype-overrides
... as well as http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/rdb2rdf/r2rml/#non-string-columns
... and http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/rdb2rdf/r2rml/#natural-mapping
(Eric and Richard still discuss the datatype mapping sections re normative and informative)
Richard: Eric, how about if we say that DM only
applies to SQL 2008 datatypes
... core part
Michael: Our VoIP system again, damn
... give us a moment please
... I don't know what was the last thing you heared
<Souri> If this point is not normative anyway (b/c it addresses data type outside SQL core 2008?), what's the harm in just marking that point as informative?
Richard: In essence it is about the fallback handling of unknown, vendor-specific extensions (just use the string representation)
<juansequeda> +1 to RIchard's analogy to HTML
<dmcneil> +q
Michael: Let's see what other reasons there might be to not go CR today
David: If my impl casts to str and I always return "" is this compliant?
Richard: Yes
Michael: Isn't the impl experience part of the next phase?
Ivan: Border-line - if this is known in advance, then we should avoid it
(Eric and Richard continue the discussion around datatypes - seems to have shifted to re implementation)
Ivan: I've heard the arguments already a thousand
times - can we deliver, now?
... I've sent in comments on DM, most of which has been taken care of by Juan
... though on the set theoretical stuff
Eric: I took care of it, yes
PROPOSAL: The WG believes that all issues that have been brought up during the LC phase concerning R2RML and DM - as recorded in http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/rdb2rdf/wiki/Last_Call - have been addressed.
<ivan> +1
Dave: Not all have been addressed
Ivan: The proposal is about comments outside from the WG
Richard: David, I addressed most of your issues as
well (but didn't find time to react to them via mail)
... the unresolved ones are naming of classes and regarding parent-child
referencing object maps
<cygri> http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/rdb2rdf/r2rml/diffs/1.187-1.188.html
Ivan: As far as I'm concerned we have addressed all
the technical issues
... David's comment is re implementations have been done properly
PROPOSAL: The WG decides to transition the two
REC-Track documents R2RML and DM to CR as of the W3C Process Document.
... The WG decides to ask the W3C Director to announce the Call for
Implementations to the Advisory Committee.
<dmcneil> +q
<Souri> What is the deadline?
<Souri> +1 to ericP's suggestion
David: can the naming stuff be done after CR?
Michael: No, we need to do it now
PROPOSAL: The WG believes that all issues that have been brought up during the LC phase concerning R2RML and DM - as recorded in http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/rdb2rdf/wiki/Last_Call - have been addressed.
<cygri> +1
<ivan> +1
<nunolopes> +1
<ericP> +1
<juansequeda> +1
<MacTed> +1
<joerg> +1
<Souri> +1
<Ashok> +1
<Seema> +1
<boris> +1
<dmcneil> +1
<ivan> RESOLVED: The WG believes that all issues that have been brought up during the LC phase concerning R2RML and DM - as recorded in http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/rdb2rdf/wiki/Last_Call - have been addressed.
PROPOSAL: The WG decides to transition the two
REC-Track documents R2RML and DM to CR as of the W3C Process Document.
... The WG decides to transition of the two REC-Track documents R2RML and DM to CR
as of the W3C Process Document pending review from David of Richard's
implementation of R2RML sections
<ivan> +1
<cygri> +1
<Souri> +1
<nunolopes> +1
<boris> +1
<dmcneil> +1
<MacTed> +1
<ericP> +1
<joerg> +1
<ivan> RESOLVED: The WG decides to transition of the two REC-Track documents R2RML and DM to CR as of the W3C Process Document pending review from David of Richard's implementation of R2RML sections
Ivan: Chairs, now is a good time to start negotiation with the W3C management
Ashok: Yes
Michael: all the record of LC is on http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/rdb2rdf/wiki/Last_Call
<ericP> ACTION: ericP to review http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/rdb2rdf/wiki/Last_Call and make sure it is in sync with directMapping/LC [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2012/01/24-RDB2RDF-minutes.html#action01]
<trackbot> Created ACTION-189 - Review http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/rdb2rdf/wiki/Last_Call and make sure it is in sync with directMapping/LC [on Eric Prud'hommeaux - due 2012-01-31].
ACTION Ashok to start negotations re CR with W3CM based on http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/rdb2rdf/wiki/Last_Call after Editors have cleaned up and David gave thumbs up
<trackbot> Created ACTION-190 - Start negotations re CR with W3CM based on http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/rdb2rdf/wiki/Last_Call after Editors have cleaned up and David gave thumbs up [on Ashok Malhotra - due 2012-01-31].
<Zakim> cygri, you wanted to ask about SotD section
Michael: SoTD and title should be updated, yes
<cygri> http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/rdb2rdf/r2rml/
<dmcneil> http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/rdb2rdf/r2rml/
<cygri> $Id: Overview.html,v 1.188 2012/01/24 17:05:54 rcygania2 Exp $
[meeting adjourned]
<dmcneil> $Id: Overview.html,v 1.188 2012/01/24 17:05:54 rcygania2 Exp $
trackbot, end telecon