IRC log of dawg on 2004-07-15

Timestamps are in UTC.

00:00:35 [ericP]

[discussion of 3.7 Limited Datatype Support]

00:01:44 [ericP]

robS: are we talking about strings or data type representations?

00:03:19 [ericP]

RESOLVED: accpet "4.8 Literal Search" as a DO

00:03:26 [ericP]

abstentions from ericP and robS

00:09:53 [Yoshio]

q+ to ask what do we mean "a subset" in requirement 3.7 Limited Datatype Support

00:10:21 [Yoshio]

s/do we mean/we mean/

00:10:33 [Yoshio]

s/mean/mean by/

00:11:14 [Yoshio]

q-

00:13:47 [ericP]

http://www.w3.org/2004/07/08-BRQL/

00:20:34 [Yoshio]

q+ to ask if we don't have any problem when we apply path expression to RDF which the basic structure is not trees but meshes, even with loops

00:22:18 [Yoshio]

s/which the/whose/

00:22:55 [ericP]

[discussion of BRQL]

00:23:49 [ericP]

robS: we don't have to adopt BRQL. prefer that we start with XQuery.

00:24:07 [ericP]

... builds on existing specs...

00:24:35 [Yoshio]

by pathe expression I mean path-expression-based language like XQuery

00:25:29 [ericP]

kendall: starting with an XQuery engine isn't sufficient for everyone

00:25:40 [ericP]

... no implementation in Python

00:25:46 [kendall]

no, it isn't *possible* for everyone

00:26:27 [ericP]

robS: not asserting that it's simple

00:27:11 [ericP]

... can't say we've impelemented the RDF query layer

00:27:15 [ericP]

simon: we need a spec in front of us to work with

00:27:39 [ericP]

danc: [gives history, back to query workshop]

00:28:02 [ericP]

... sounds like an argument to pause for a while.

00:29:59 [ericP]

robS: going wtih an RDF-only query languge, NI will suffer

00:30:10 [ericP]

jeff: the semweb in general will suffer

00:30:52 [ericP]

simon: does that follow from not adopting XQuery, a language for querying hierarchical documents?

00:31:18 [ericP]

... the RDF stack is more similar

00:31:36 [ericP]

jeff: not saying that out of the box, it's a solution

00:32:17 [ericP]

kendall: it's not XQuery vs. start from scratch.

00:34:35 [ericP]

robS: XQuery took a long time because they were designing a language that would be easy to write

00:35:09 [ericP]

howard: i think it was the complexities of XQuery that made the spec so big.

00:35:57 [ericP]

robS: the RDF query langs have crappy presentation over good calculus

00:37:50 [ericP]

s/calculus/algebra/

00:52:39 [Yoshio]

Hmm aren't we just looking at BRQL as ONE of candidates for the strawman?

00:52:59 [ericP]

yes

00:53:16 [Yoshio]

I think we're going to look into XsRQL or N3QL as well

00:59:03 [Yoshio]

what is the definition of the word algebra? is it different from calculus?

00:59:20 [DanC_jam]

good question, Yoshio. I'm actually not certain.

00:59:41 [Yoshio]

(I don't know the definition of calculus, either, ;))

01:01:26 [Yoshio]

and what's the difference from data model?

01:02:05 [Yoshio]

As the data model, what we have is RDF (obvious?)

01:02:35 [Yoshio]

I think it's quite different from that of XML (a tree like document model)

01:05:20 [Yoshio]

* we have reached to a consensus that we are not likely to have a consensus easily

01:29:05 [AndyS]

AndyS has joined #dawg

04:32:07 [Zakim]

Zakim has left #dawg

05:36:18 [AndyS]

AndyS has joined #dawg

16:21:11 [RRSAgent]

RRSAgent has joined #dawg

16:22:40 [SimonR]

Considering the ebXML UC.

16:23:17 [DanC_jam]

6 Jun rev of ebXML http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-dawg/2004JulSep/0032.html

16:24:14 [DanC_jam]

Tue, 06 Jul 2004 11:26:20 -0400

16:26:56 [JosD]

JosD has joined #dawg

16:27:34 [howardk]

howardk has joined #dawg

16:31:18 [HiroyukiS]

HiroyukiS has joined #DAWG

16:32:50 [SimonR]

RobS: The drill-down mentioned in the UC is in the description logic domain rather than in basic RDF.

16:33:05 [DaveB]

I wonder if it's time to think about defining terms. A triple pattern is .... A graph pattern is a cnjunction of triple patterns. etc.

16:34:01 [AndyS]

+1

16:34:12 [kendall]

seems relatively undangerous

16:34:48 [SimonR]

I think we've reached a point where a formal, abstract model of what a query is will be useful, and there's general agreement that this is the case.

16:43:13 [ericP]

agenda request: winter f2f schduling and spring tech plen -- ask if "the next 2-4 weeks" is sufficient notification to schedule our winter f2f.

16:43:47 [kendall]

heh, reschedule :>

16:43:58 [SimonR]

Issue with drill-down is that querying for what counts as a direct descendant in a hierarchy rather simply a descendant in a hierarchy. To do this would require being able to query to non-existence of any intermediate points in the hierarchy.

16:45:17 [SimonR]

(...rather than simply...)

16:47:05 [ericP]

http://www.w3.org/2004/07/15-dawg-irc has been chacl'd

16:49:10 [DanC_jam]

regrep tc http://www.oasis-open.org/committees/tc_home.php?wg_abbrev=regrep

16:49:50 [JosD]

RIM 2.5 http://www.oasis-open.org/committees/regrep/documents/2.5/specs/ebrim-2.5.pdf

16:57:12 [AndyS]

Discussing :: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-dawg/2004JulSep/att-0087/_DAPD_PaperMain.pdf

17:03:13 [SimonR]

ebXML use case motivates interactive browsing; Kendall feels that 2.10 already implies interaction browsing, but some disagreement that this is clearly implied.

17:03:55 [SimonR]

ACTION: Kendall add ebXML UC

17:04:52 [SimonR]

ACTION: RobS write email to Farrukh

17:05:19 [DanC_jam]

1.5 Relationship to XQuery http://www.w3.org/2003/12/swa/dawg-charter#XQueryBinding

17:09:48 [SimonR]

EricP: Describes a UC involving querying the Edgar database and integrating XML and RDF sources into the one query.

17:19:10 [DanC_jam]

... exploration of XQuery/RDF query integration scenarios: is loose coupling sufficient? is there motivation for anything more than string concatenation to make up queries, and XML to return results?

17:21:25 [ericP]

example FA query: http://www.w3.org/2001/11/13-RDF-Query-Rules/#XQueryFA

17:22:02 [DaveB-lap]

DaveB-lap has joined #dawg

17:30:10 [SimonR]

Break at 10:30 until 10:45.

17:46:47 [HiroyukiS]

HiroyukiS has joined #DAWG

17:50:49 [ericP]

http://www.w3.org/2004/07/16-FA/

18:00:43 [DanC_jam]

Zakim, this is dawg

18:00:43 [Zakim]

ok, DanC_jam; that matches SW_DAWG(f2f)2:00PM

18:00:52 [DanC_jam]

Zakim, who's on the phone?

18:00:52 [Zakim]

On the phone I see RobS

18:01:00 [DanC_jam]

Zakim, RobS is temporarily MeetingRoom

18:01:00 [Zakim]

+MeetingRoom; got it

18:02:01 [AndyS]

Resuming ...

18:02:42 [DaveB]

DaveB has joined #dawg

18:02:44 [howardk]

FYI: code for traversing a possibly cyclic foaf:knows network in XsRQL: http://www.fatdog.com/CyclicFoafs.html

18:03:55 [Zakim]

+ +17907aaaa

18:04:06 [DaveB-lap]

that's me

18:04:12 [DanC_jam]

Zakim, aaaa is DaveB

18:04:12 [Zakim]

+DaveB; got it

18:09:53 [DanC_jam]

AndyS tweaks title page... author/editor stuff...

18:10:38 [Yoshio]

what's the URI?

18:10:49 [DaveB-lap]

editing http://www.w3.org/2004/07/08-BRQL/

18:11:17 [Yoshio]

thank you, dave

18:12:06 [DaveB-lap]

w00f

18:13:43 [DaveB-lap]

BARQ?

18:15:33 [Yoshio]

BBQ :)

18:19:15 [DanC_jam]

DanC gave editorial input on TOC and argued against SOURCE

18:19:36 [DanC_jam]

(slightly longer version is recorded by AndyS in the live copy)

18:25:00 [TomAdams]

TomAdams has joined #dawg

18:34:45 [DanC_jam]

ACTION: Jos: explain log:includes to inform the discussion of SOURCE (nee provenance)

18:35:15 [DaveB-lap]

the SOURCE thing could be an extension point

18:35:50 [DaveB-lap]

I kinda like the way that algae allows it (triple) {foo:bar} where they are extensions, annotations of the triple, kinda

18:36:18 [kendall]

triple facets, i keep calling them.

18:36:54 [DaveB-lap]

ptr to jos's test http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-dawg/2004JulSep/0037.html

18:36:59 [DanC_jam]

jos refers us to example 2 in http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-dawg/2004JulSep/0037.html

18:42:01 [DanC_jam]

DaveB: I like the the way that algae does it [optionals] too. [pointer, please?]

18:42:26 [DaveB-lap]

I was saying I like the way the result triples are built up

18:42:30 [DaveB-lap]

in algae, and here

18:42:46 [DanC_jam]

ACTION AndyS: explain DESCRIBE design implicit in BRQL spec

18:42:53 [DaveB-lap]

if it means lessspecial features in the language, great

18:43:20 [DanC_jam]

a pointer to the relevant algae docs would be nice, daveb.

18:43:27 [DaveB-lap]

looking

18:44:14 [DaveB-lap]

algae2 result sets description: http://www.w3.org/2004/05/06-Algae/#resultSet

18:51:18 [DanC_jam]

ACTION DanC: explain evolution of log:semantics/log:includes from uri-is-graph to uri-is-doc in cwm, to inform discussion of SOURCE

18:51:41 [DaveB-lap]

I'm willing to take an action to explain the two uses of redland contexts I see most.

18:52:02 [DanC_jam]

very well, dave. pls write the action

18:52:43 [DaveB-lap]

ACTION DaveB: explain the main uses seen for redland contexts with respect to the provenance

18:53:15 [DanC_jam]

(I just discovered http://www.w3.org/2004/03/trix/ .)

18:53:39 [DaveB-lap]

yeah, they use the 4th item as something else, but they recently changed. from bnode|uri to just allowing a uri

18:58:56 [Yoshio]

q+ to clarify if NOT operator can have multiple triples as operands

19:00:51 [Yoshio]

q-

19:00:56 [DaveB-lap]

Yoshio: as I understand it, no

19:02:07 [JosD]

Re nested optionals see also test case in http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-dawg/2004AprJun/0737.html

19:04:05 [Yoshio]

q+ to ask the meaning of DISTINCT

19:04:53 [DaveB-lap]

Yoshio, as I recall we based it on SeRQL - duplicate triples are removed from the output graph

19:05:08 [DaveB-lap]

or duplicate binding resutls

19:05:09 [Yoshio]

Yes, but is it optional?

19:05:28 [DaveB-lap]

if not given, you may get duplicates

19:05:57 [Yoshio]

Hmm, I'm not sure what's the use of having duplicates

19:06:45 [DaveB-lap]

it's a performance thing partially

19:07:02 [DaveB-lap]

the server (or something) can filter it for the end user

19:07:29 [DaveB-lap]

see SeRQL manual for lots of this http://www.openrdf.org/doc/users/ch05.html

19:07:39 [Yoshio]

Thank you, I'll check it

19:07:54 [Yoshio]

q-

19:07:54 [AndyS]

http://jena.hpl.hp.com/~afs/DAWG/Tests/dawg-tests.n3

19:08:03 [DanC_jam]

^ a test manifest

19:08:56 [DanC_jam]

DanC: what test coverage do we have?

19:09:09 [DanC_jam]

A: for RDQL, a test suite that some developers are happy with. For other BRQL features, a start.

19:10:17 [Yoshio]

BTW, where are ericP, Simon, Kendall and Rob?

19:11:01 [DanC_jam]

ACTION Jos: discuss test suite documentation and maintenance with Steve, EricP, AndyS, ...

19:13:56 [kendall]

Yoshio: I had to use the phone for a second. My boss called, wanted to know what was going on. :>

19:14:16 [DanC_jam]

Jos: in the case of bindings, results can just be a list

19:14:19 [Yoshio]

welcome back, kendall, nice to have you again :)

19:14:27 [DanC_jam]

AndyS: need the names too. [explains why...]

19:15:38 [DaveB-lap]

q+ agenda for after lunch? f2f page isn't updated

19:15:40 [Yoshio]

what do you mean by "need the names too", Andy, I think I missed your comment

19:16:21 [kendall]

Yos: thanks :>

19:16:42 [DaveB-lap]

q+ to ask about the agenda for after lunch? f2f page isn't updated for day2

19:17:15 [DanC_jam]

(my mind hasn't been updated either)

19:17:45 [DaveB-lap]

q-

19:19:30 [Yoshio]

* After lunch? Dessert! :)

19:21:02 [kendall]

a cuppa!

19:31:22 [DanC_jam]

(discussion of editorial structure)

19:33:34 [Yoshio]

From my own experience, it was very good that I could find the Concepts and Abstract Syntax document for RDF as a separate document

19:35:01 [Yoshio]

It helps me to understand clearly that RDF/XML is just one way of serialization (wrong?)

19:35:28 [DaveB-lap]

we clearly needed that since peoplw ere confused seeing the XML as the RDF

19:36:22 [Yoshio]

Yes, one of the members of INTAP Semantic Web Committee is one of them

19:39:03 [DanC_jam]

agenda + strawman ql

19:39:09 [DanC_jam]

agenda + protocols

19:39:17 [DanC_jam]

agenda + bookmarking requirement/objective

19:44:37 [DanC_jam]

agenda + toward a 1 Aug requirements/use cases update. recruit reviewers

19:47:23 [TomAdams]

zakim, who is on the phone?

19:47:24 [Zakim]

On the phone I see MeetingRoom, DaveB

19:47:51 [Zakim]

-DaveB

19:47:52 [Zakim]

-MeetingRoom

19:47:52 [Zakim]

SW_DAWG(f2f)2:00PM has ended

19:47:53 [Zakim]

Attendees were MeetingRoom, +17907aaaa, DaveB

19:51:24 [DanC_jam]

$Revision: 1.11 $ of $Date: 2004/07/15 19:51:01 $ http://www.w3.org/2004/07/08-BRQL/

19:51:25 [DanC_jam]

saved

20:08:29 [DanC_jam]

Zakim, agenda?

20:08:29 [Zakim]

I see nothing on the agenda

21:34:27 [AndyS]

AndyS has joined #dawg

21:34:57 [kendall]

kendall has joined #dawg

21:36:21 [DanC_jam]

DanC_jam has joined #dawg

21:36:41 [Yoshio]

Yoshio has joined #dawg

21:38:22 [afs]

afs has joined #dawg

21:40:20 [afs_]

afs_ has joined #dawg

21:41:08 [ericP]

http://www.w3.org/2004/07/16-FA/

21:41:25 [SimonR]

SimonR has joined #dawg

21:47:35 [HiroyukiS]

HiroyukiS has joined #DAWG

21:47:52 [DanC_jam]

agenda + UC&R publication update, pending updates

21:48:04 [DanC_jam]

agenda + Strawman Syntax

21:48:09 [DanC_jam]

agenda + Protocols (GetData), etc.

21:49:11 [JosD_scribe]

=========== discussing UC&R proposed text changes

21:49:28 [JosD_scribe]

expected next publishing date aug 1

21:50:15 [JosD_scribe]

going document order and then new ones? no, go through Kendall's todo list

21:51:25 [JosD_scribe]

... walking through Kendall's list

21:53:42 [JosD_scribe]

... finished the list

21:53:56 [JosD_scribe]

=== bookmarkable queries

21:54:24 [JosD_scribe]

suggested text:

21:54:31 [DanC_jam]

on 3.8 http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-dawg/2004JulSep/0098.html

21:56:26 [JosD_scribe]

DanC: hope to make that testable

21:57:09 [JosD_scribe]

no objections; astaining 1 (SimonR)

21:58:51 [JosD_scribe]

RESOLVED: adopt suggested text in http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-dawg/2004JulSep/0098.html as objective 4...

22:00:57 [JosD_scribe]

=== XQuery compatible surface syntax

22:01:30 [JosD_scribe]

EricP will project the 2 examples

22:03:04 [DanC_jam]

query syntax proposal http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-dawg/2004JulSep/0091.html

22:04:50 [JosD_scribe]

(takes some tome to boot the projector :))

22:05:01 [JosD_scribe]

s/tome/time

22:06:02 [ericP]

http://www.w3.org/2004/07/16-FA/

22:11:22 [JosD_scribe]

discussing http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-dawg/2004JulSep/0091.html

22:17:27 [JosD_scribe]

quting from the message "Therefore, NI proposes that a new requirement be considered by this group: The query language shall have an XQuery compatible concrete language syntax"

22:17:41 [JosD_scribe]

s/quting/quoting

22:18:49 [JosD_scribe]

RobS: "XQuery compatible concrete language syntax" is syntax plus more??

22:19:35 [JosD_scribe]

RobS: suggesting "srface syntax"

22:20:36 [JosD_scribe]

s/srface/surface

22:22:28 [JosD_scribe]

straw poll shows that support as requirement is 1 and about 4 as an objective

22:29:15 [JosD_scribe]

EricP: copy wording from charter - Eric now gives some background...

22:30:47 [JosD_scribe]

... produce a binding for XQuery

22:32:33 [JosD_scribe]

DanC: propsed req "syntax we choose should exploit people knowledge of SQL"

22:32:40 [DanC_jam]

s/req/objective/

22:32:47 [DanC_jam]

1 or 2 in support, per straw poll

22:34:06 [JosD_scribe]

disculling http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-dawg/2004JulSep/att-0091/DAWG_req_proposal.pdf

22:34:24 [JosD_scribe]

s/disculling.discussing

22:41:52 [JosD_scribe]

after discussion no shift in positions

22:44:36 [AndyS]

. ACTION: SimonR Track the work of the WG to keep a current, discussable XQuery syntax document

22:46:10 [DanC_jam]

write a document discussing tradeoffs with adapting XQuery to do [...?]

22:46:55 [DanC_jam]

ACTION: write a document discussing tradeoffs with adapting XQuery as an RDF query language

22:47:15 [AndyS]

Action on SimonR

22:47:53 [JosD_scribe]

=== requirement on disjunction

22:48:35 [AndyS]

http://www.w3.org/2004/Talks/tp-robie/Overview.html

22:48:36 [Yoshio]

* what kind of hats are we wearing now?

22:48:57 [DanC_jam]

on disjuction... http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-dawg/2004JulSep/0085.html

22:50:15 [JosD_scribe]

stated as requirement, appeals to 4 to 5

22:50:40 [Yoshio]

appeals to Yoshio, too

22:52:51 [DanC_jam]

ACTION RobS: help kendal find supporting use cases for disjuction

22:53:01 [Yoshio]

q+ to ask if we take disjunction of matching pattern, will it reduce the number of the match?

22:57:08 [JosD_scribe]

Yoshio: ask if we take disjunction of matching pattern, will it reduce the number of the match?

22:57:27 [JosD_scribe]

DanC: it is Q2 V Q1

22:59:34 [AndyS]

q+ On last clause of req - unclear on ASK queries implication

22:59:51 [AndyS]

q+ to ask On last clause of req - unclear on ASK queries implication

23:00:37 [DaveB]

I'd like to know if there is complexity when optionals & disjunction are used together.

23:01:00 [DaveB]

well, I bet there is, but can it be explained

23:01:31 [AndyS]

Maybe optionals is actually the disjunction effect but done in a different way.

23:02:22 [JosD_scribe]

AndyS: On last clause of req - unclear on ASK queries implication

23:03:33 [JosD_scribe]

DanC proposes his test case of last night

23:04:46 [DanC_jam]

"The query language must include the capability to restrict matches on a

23:04:47 [DanC_jam]

queried graph based on a disjunction of graph patterns, at least one of

23:04:47 [DanC_jam]

which must be satisfied"

23:05:49 [ericP]

annotea use case: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-dawg/2004AprJun/0247.html

23:05:54 [JosD_scribe]

RESOLVED disjunction as requirement

23:05:54 [ericP]

(RobS)

23:06:15 [JosD_scribe]

no objections, 1 abstention (JosD)

23:06:47 [Yoshio]

I'm happy with the disjunction being adopted as a requirement, but I fell more clarification in its wording

23:06:59 [Yoshio]

s/fell/feel/

23:07:17 [Yoshio]

s/clarification/clarification needed/

23:07:59 [DanC_jam]

ACTION Kendal: draft revision, toward updating our public WD, delivery ~next wed.

23:08:03 [DanC_jam]

ACTION RobS: review it.

23:08:24 [DanC_jam]

ACTION 10= Kendall: draft revision, toward updating our public WD, delivery ~next wed.

23:09:00 [DanC_jam]

agenda?

23:09:04 [Yoshio]

q?

23:09:07 [DanC_jam]

Zakim, close agendum 1

23:09:07 [Zakim]

agendum 1 closed

23:09:08 [Zakim]

I see 2 items remaining on the agenda; the next one is

23:09:08 [Yoshio]

q-

23:09:09 [Zakim]

2. Strawman Syntax [from DanC_jam]

23:09:11 [AndyS]

q-

23:09:16 [JosD_scribe]

now we have a plan for publishing an updated UC&R document

23:09:47 [Yoshio]

q+ to ask if you feel some means to easily search for items in a collection

23:12:41 [DanC_jam]

. ACTION DanC: notify Semantic Web CG of risks around the "1.5 Relationship with XQuery" scope of our charter.

23:20:35 [DanC_jam]

ACTION DanC: notify Semantic Web CG of risks around the "1.5 Relationship with XQuery" scope of our charter.

23:21:01 [Yoshio]

agenda?

23:21:15 [JosD_scribe]

============ strawman syntax

23:21:16 [DanC_jam]

http://www.w3.org/2004/07/08-BRQL/ 1.11

23:23:03 [DanC_jam]

30 oct RDQL http://www.w3.org/Submission/2003/SUBM-RDQL-20031030/

23:23:54 [DaveB]

the above isn't public, you likely mean http://www.w3.org/Submission/2004/SUBM-RDQL-20040109/

23:24:38 [JosD_scribe]

who would prefer RDQL: 3

23:25:41 [JosD_scribe]

who would prefer BRQL over RDQL: about 6

23:26:52 [JosD_scribe]

advive from chair is that RDQL will bring us faster to REC

23:27:05 [JosD_scribe]

s/advive/advice

23:29:20 [JosD_scribe]

there are now issues raised in http://www.w3.org/2004/07/08-BRQL/

23:29:54 [Yoshio]

q-

23:31:08 [JosD_scribe]

critical mass for support of http://www.w3.org/2004/07/08-BRQL/ 1.11

23:32:54 [JosD_scribe]

RESOLVED: adopt http://www.w3.org/2004/07/08-BRQL/ 1.11 as strawman - objection NI - abstention HowardK

23:33:46 [DaveB]

congrats all

23:33:47 [DanC_jam]

NEW ISSUES: re CONSTRUCT: what happens when variable are not bound?

23:34:05 [DanC_jam]

NEW ISSUE: BARQL 1.11 does not support yes/no queries sufficiently

23:34:26 [DanC_jam]

s/BARQL/BRQL/

23:34:28 [Yoshio]

q+ to ask if we're going to have other strawmen

23:35:06 [DanC_jam]

ack yoshio

23:35:06 [Zakim]

Yoshio, you wanted to ask if we're going to have other strawmen

23:35:18 [DanC_jam]

yes, we have an action on parallel XQuery design

23:36:31 [SimonR]

*sigh*

23:37:40 [DanC_jam]

Kendall: if requirements settle down, I might be willing to maintain the issues list

23:37:40 [JosD_scribe]

Kendall: make it easier to find the issues; Kendall is offering himself to maintain an issue list!!!

23:38:08 [JosD_scribe]

======== protocols

23:39:22 [kendall]

http://tap.stanford.edu/tap/getdata.html

23:39:30 [DanC_jam]

# evalutate TAP's GetData? Dan Connolly (Sunday, 4 July) http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-dawg/2004JulSep/0019.html

23:40:30 [DanC_jam]

http://tap.stanford.edu/tap/getdatadetails.html

23:45:27 [kendall]

dan would like getdata folks to support what we do

23:45:44 [kendall]

seems unlikely since we may be more complex, and they've tried to maximize simplicity

23:47:02 [JosD]

Motivation for GetData http://tap.stanford.edu/tap/motivation.html

23:49:14 [DanC_jam]

cf TAP: A System for integrating Web Services into a Global Knowledge Base. R.V.Guha and Rob McCool

23:49:23 [DanC_jam]

http://tap.stanford.edu/sw002.html

23:55:06 [JosD]

Joseki test suite is Junit based; does graph isomorphism matching; ...