RDB2RDF Working Group Teleconference

22 May 2012


See also: IRC log


Michael, Ivan, David, Richard, Boris, Ashok, Seema, Souri
mhausenblas, ivan


<trackbot> Date: 22 May 2012

<mhausenblas> RRSAgent:

<mhausenblas> scribenick: mhausenblas

<scribe> scribenick: ivan

<Ashok> Sure, I'm happy to chair

<boris> it was me

approve minutes

<Ashok> PROPOSAL: Accept the minutes of last meeting http://www.w3.org/2012/05/15-RDB2RDF-minutes.html

<mhausenblas> Michael: I wasn't present but looks good ;)

Ashok: any objections?

… carried once

… carried twice...

RESOLUTION: Accept the minutes of last meeting http://www.w3.org/2012/05/15-RDB2RDF-minutes.html

remaining issue

Ashok: last week the wg agreed that we are not to add any functionality to r2rml

… but rather add wording telling the differences

… richard sent out some wording

… there was fairly good agreement on it

… so question: are we agreeable on richard's wording?

<Ashok> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdb2rdf-wg/2012May/0110.html

ashok: is that the correct email, richard?

<cygri> http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/rdb2rdf/r2rml/diffs/default-mapping.html

cygri: ^ these are the changes on DM, as edited by eric

Ashok: have people been able to read it?

… i got a number of +1-s on email

<Souri> +1

… if people want we can go through them again

ashok: the question I asked: are we ready to approve richard's wording?

… or people want to go through it again

ericP: I think we done it, I am fine

Ashok: I got a +1 from Juan, Marcello, and a number issues

PROPOSED: to accept Richard's wording on http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdb2rdf-wg/2012May/0110.html and thereby close the issue on cardinality

<cygri> http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/rdb2rdf/track/of others/79

PROPOSED: to accept Richard's wording on http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdb2rdf-wg/2012May/0110.html and thereby close the issue on cardinality, and thereby closing issue-79


RESOLUTION: to accept Richard's wording on http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdb2rdf-wg/2012May/0110.html and thereby close the issue on cardinality, and thereby closing issue-79

<Souri> :-)

Ashok: we have to figure out the process questions
... richard, you have actually prepared a document?

cygri: the editor's document is the one we have just approved

… we have the wiki page describing the changes, I have to add that one, too

… otherwise it is complete

Ashok: eric, juan, what about the dm side?

… eric you sent out a mail last night?

ericP: that one adopted the wording

… the second commit I changed the value and attribute separator tags from hyphens and dots to equal and semicolumns

… however that change brings us back to last call

ashok: that one, and the change from base64 and hex encoding
... the question is whether we will have the final document?

ericP: if we decide to that latest stuff, I would like juan and marcello to review the rule section, but I believe it is there

… I may have done some mistake with the global search and replace

<juansequeda> ericP, can you send a link to the latest changes

Ashok: juan and marcello, could you review this in the next couple of days

Marcello, juan: yes

Ashok: we could therefore have the final document in the next few days
... shall we agree on Friday the 25th?

<mhausenblas> Michael: concerning the road ahead - R2RML can transition to PR and if we go for a direct LC-PR transition we can get them out at the same time ...

mhausenblas: from our charter until the end of june

<Ashok> Ivan: The changes in R2RML introduce a new notion ... so it's borderline if we need a LC for R2RML

<Zakim> ericP, you wanted to say it does change implementations

cygri: I agree to that: it makes a lot of sense, the current changes in r2rml is a borderline, it makes sense to do a 2nd lc with r2rml, too

<mhausenblas> Michael: I second that, let's go into 2nd LC with both R2RML and DM

<Ashok> +1 to Michael

<mhausenblas> Michael: And we can then go directly to PR from 2nd LC

ericP: when you have all your implementations ready, it is polite to go through a CR period, but we can note in the LC that we plan to go to PR directly

… and we have to do the implementation report

Ashok: I thought we can do a shorter last call?

ericP: may be it is 3 weeks

<mhausenblas> Michael: http://www.w3.org/2005/10/Process-20051014/tr.html#cfr

… but, do we think it is realistic?

<Ashok> Michael: LC should be 3 weeks or longer

ericP: will be able to have an implementation report in 3 weeks?

Ashok: what do we have to do differently?

… .we have to change the encoding

ericP: we have to rewrite the tests

<boris> +1 to ericP

… but I do not know how many people have been running all the tests

… e.g. the ones with the Kanji characters

… or the multiple non-unique rows

Ashok: if we get the documents on the 25th,

ivan: we can then publish next week Tuesday

Ashok: if we publish next tuesday, 29th, then we got 3 weeks, that is the 19th of June

… for the LC period

mhausenblas: we should have a formal proposal for 2nd last call

PROPOSAL: R2RML and DM should be published as a 2nd last call on Tuesday, 29th of May, with a LC period of 3 weeks, i.e., until the 19th of June

<mhausenblas> +1


<boris> +1

<cygri> +1

<ericP> +1

<juansequeda> +1

<Marcelo> +1

<seema> +1

<cygri> +1.5 actually

<Souri> +1

RESOLUTION: R2RML and DM should be published as a 2nd last call on Tuesday, 29th of May, with a LC period of 3 weeks, i.e., until the 19th of June

Ashok: I would like to get an idea who will implement, to get the formal reports

… from eric, juan?

david: I do not expect we will have time to complete the implementation

… for R2RML

Souri: we are working, but legally we cannot say things

<Zakim> cygri, you wanted to say we should have R2RML

cygri: i think by this date we should have r2rml complete

… and the direct mapping with the exception with the blank node issue i expect to have that done, too

Ashok: eric, will you have both of them, or only the dm?

boris: same as richard, we can have the r2rml implementation by mid-end June

… only r2rml

cygri: the dm we will have to pass except for the bnode issue

<Ashok> Ashok: Boris, Richard will have R2RML implemented

<mhausenblas> Michael: looking at http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/rdb2rdf/wiki/Implementations makes me believe that we have one more for R2RML - Nuno's impl

ericP: I will have dm over three databases

<Ashok> Eric will have DM implemented

juansequeda: we have it ready for r2rml and dm

Ashok: we should have enough then

… excellent!

mhausenblas: I would like to start on implementation report

… where are we on the earl stuff, etc

boris: the whole test case and the report I have still review the test cases document

… with the last chagnes

… then we already have the setup for earl report

… the last thing is to generate an html page from the earl report

mhausenblas: maybe it is worth to do a dry round even if it is not complete

… just to be able to plug in another earl document in

boris: we can start right now with earl reports we have now

Ashok: do you have the test cases ready

boris: by Monday

mhausenblas: we should be set by now

Ashok: charter and timing?

mhausenblas: nothing, in terms of charter we are chartered until june

<mhausenblas> http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/rdb2rdf/

mhausenblas: I was wrong, the charter is until end of september!

cygri: i have a question, looking over the r2rml editors draft

… we have a link to the uc document and the test cases document

… what is going to happen there

… the uc document is june 2010

… is that just essentially stay like that (as a draft) or not

… the test cases is labeled as an editor's draft in the wg web space

<boris> http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/rdb2rdf/test-cases/

Ashok: we have to think about a 1.1 version

… whether we want that or not

cygri: the links are as they are in the r2rml

Ashok: we are to have a telco next week, just to make sure that the document gets published

… starting the last call, etc

Ashok: let us keep on the schedule, if things are published then we can cancel the meeting

meeting ajourned

<Ashok> rrsagent make logs public

<mhausenblas> trackbot, end telecon

Summary of Action Items

[End of minutes]

Minutes formatted by David Booth's scribe.perl version 1.136 (CVS log)
$Date: 2012/05/22 16:49:36 $

Scribe.perl diagnostic output

[Delete this section before finalizing the minutes.]
This is scribe.perl Revision: 1.136  of Date: 2011/05/12 12:01:43  
Check for newer version at http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2002/scribe/

Guessing input format: RRSAgent_Text_Format (score 1.00)

Succeeded: s/issues/of others/
Succeeded: s/country/Kanji/
Succeeded: s/R2R/R2RML/
Succeeded: s/until/chartered until/
Found ScribeNick: mhausenblas
Found ScribeNick: ivan
Inferring Scribes: mhausenblas, ivan
Scribes: mhausenblas, ivan
ScribeNicks: mhausenblas, ivan
Default Present: cygri, Ashok_Malhotra, dmcneil, Ivan, boris, Souri, juansequeda, +1.603.897.aaaa, seema, EricP, +2714aabb, marcello, +1.512.484.aacc
Present: Michael Ivan David Richard Boris Ashok Seema Souri
Agenda: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdb2rdf-wg/2012May/0117.html
Found Date: 22 May 2012
Guessing minutes URL: http://www.w3.org/2012/05/22-RDB2RDF-minutes.html
People with action items: 

WARNING: Input appears to use implicit continuation lines.
You may need the "-implicitContinuations" option.

[End of scribe.perl diagnostic output]