DAWG Weekly -- 25 Oct 2005

Convene, take roll, review records and agenda

<kendall_> i don't believe there's anything new re: agendum 4, FWIW

Also LeeF attending

Minutes from last meeting approved

Attending: EliasT, LeeF, RachelY, PatH, SteveH, AndyS, KendallC, DanC, YoshioF
... JosD

<DanC> ACTION: EricP to fix test schema to match manifest with negative tests [CONTINUES] [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2005/10/25-dawg-irc]

<DanC> ACTION: DanC to follow up re optional test based on op:dateTime triple [CONTINUES] [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2005/10/25-dawg-irc]

1 Nov meeting, Janne scribing

toward Note on using SPARQL with WSDL 1.1

SPARQL with WSDL 1.1 publication imminent

or not. :>

Dan's action continues, since it's not done yet

LeeF: Ask WS-Desc to look at SPARQL with WSDL 1.1

<EliasT> yay! DanC recognized LeeF's voice.

<DanC> ACTION: LeeF to ask WSDL WG to review WSDL 1.1 SPARQL protocol stuff, once it is available [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2005/10/25-dawg-irc]

<DanC> ACTION: DanC to publish WSDL 1.1 sparql protocol note, contingent on thumbs-up from KC, EricP, Lee/Elias [CONTINUES] [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2005/10/25-dawg-irc]

argh, i forgot how to reg an ACTION:)

protocol testing update

<DanC> gold star to Andy for reproducing the testing results

Not ready to approve any tests just yet

Whether protocol needs additional warnings/faults/errors will be left to protocol testing developments

EliasT: tests may need another endpoint

DanC suggests something that I didn't catch ;>

+EricP

FWIW, the protocol spec has some URIs with bad TLDs that need to be fixed.

<AndyS> http:./example.my/

<AndyS> http://example.my/

<DanC> my.example is OK

<EliasT> example.[org|com|net]

<EliasT> and *.example, right?

<ericP> yes

<EliasT> :-)

<DanC> http://www.w3.org/2001/06/manual/#ref-DOMAINS

<AndyS> http://example/ is correct is not GETtable (today)

<DanC> [[

<DanC> To safely satisfy these needs, four domain names are reserved as

<DanC> listed and described below.

<DanC> .test

<DanC> .example

<DanC> .invalid

<DanC> .localhost

<DanC> ]]

<DanC> http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc2606.txt

<ericP> from SPARQL Query: _:a foaf:mbox <mailto:alice@work.example> .

<DanC> [[ Avoid "my" and "me" in examples (e.g., use "userResource" and not "myResource"). ]] http://www.w3.org/2001/06/manual/

<scribe> ACTION: KendallC to remove uses of "my" in URIs in protocol spec [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2005/10/25-dawg-irc]

<DanC> ACTION: Jeen try to reproduces EliasT's protocol testing results [CONTINUES] [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2005/10/25-dawg-irc]

<DanC> AFS: I saw a relevant release announcement

SPARQL Protocol and WSDL

<DanC> ACTION: KC to review sparql-types for xs:any weirdness, w.r.t. WSDL 2.0 constraints [CONTINUES] [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2005/10/25-dawg-irc]

<DanC> some progress.

<DanC> ACTION: DanC to notifty DAWG of WSDL response to our WSDL comments [CONTINUES] [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2005/10/25-dawg-irc]

KC: i gather a WSD WG review is in progress; mostly happy

Security Considerations

<scribe> ACTION: KendallC to Send review of SPARQL protocol spec from WS-Desc to DAWG list. [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2005/10/25-dawg-irc]

<kendall_> Strings often cause changes in my brain state, for example. :>

Some worry over the anthropomorphic language in the security considerations stuff

<DanC> rather than "queries may cause...", say "Processing queries may involve..."

<DanC> PROPOSED: that B. Security Considerations + editorial tweaks incl. citing protocol spec are responsive to http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-dawg-comments/2005Jul/0044

<kendall_> I don't believe adding additional policy considerations changes the design in a way that matters for Last Call...

<DanC> better be safe than sorry

<kendall_> ok

<kendall_> I should say that I don't really care one way or t'other :>

<kendall_> Eric, will you drop the URI to yr proposed text into IRC?

<ericP> SPARQL Query "Security Considerations" section

ah, it's already in rq23. gotcha

<DanC> PROPOSED: that B. Security Considerations rev 1.514 + editorial tweaks incl. citing protocol spec are responsive to http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-dawg-comments/2005Jul/0044

<DanC> so RESOLVED

<DanC> ACTION: EricP to respond to "Security Considerations" comment [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2005/10/25-dawg-irc]

<ericP> tx all

<scribe> ACTION: KendallC to add a modified version of http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/DataAccess/rq23/#security to protocol editor's draft, as well as a pointer to the section in rq23 itself. [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2005/10/25-dawg-irc]

issues#rdfSemantics

PatH: provisionally, Enrico's new doc seems like a neat way of doing it...

<kendall_> The Semantics of SPARQL by E. Franconi and S. Tessaris

Some discussion of the undefined constant in their semantics

<scribe> ACTION: PatH to review The Semantics of SPARQL [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2005/10/25-dawg-irc]

We all have an expectation (or we all seem to) that this doc will be input to the QL spec.

Likely to have, we believe, soundness & completeness results

Doesn't cover OPTIONAL now, but there's a promise that it will, as well as a promise of an algebra to come too

<kendall_> My org believes it is a good use of our time, FWIW.

<AndyS> KC, Do you know if Bijan is making progress from last week's discussions?

<kendall_> I wouldn't be able to say, Andy. We've been heads-down on an RDF database benchmark paper, so I'd be surprised. But I just don't know,.

<DanC> ACTION: PatH to sketch tests that characterize impact of semantics work [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2005/10/25-dawg-irc]

<DanC> ACTION: Bijan to take a pass through the editor's draft, listing what will change with the new semantics understanding, and what will not [CONTINUES] [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2005/10/25-dawg-irc]

<DanC> ACTION: Enrico to take a pass through the editor's draft, listing what will change with the new semantics understanding ... [CONTINUES] [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2005/10/25-dawg-irc]

PatH: yeah, we need more algebra stuff from Enrico

DanC: no binding precedents about bnodes, no, PatH