16:28:44 <RRSAgent> RRSAgent has joined #dawg
16:28:57 <kendall> close issues primarily by adding test cases to a suite
16:30:05 <kendall> Simon: we have to be careful about "closing issues" by *adding* new features, which may lead to an overly complex language
16:30:47 <kendall> test-driven devel is supposed to give us a certain amount of "design courage"
16:31:38 <kendall> bootstrapping problem with articulating tests *in* the language, except some tests and new features change the language
16:31:49 <kendall> thus, tests will have to be rewritten, perhaps repeatedly
16:32:13 <kendall> rewriting can be obsoleting tests
16:33:10 <kendall> we can start with natural language descriptions of tests; but eventually we'll want an automated, machine-processible test suite, so that other folks can interact with them.
16:33:29 <kendall> we'll also need protocol tests -- which can be a pain
16:34:45 <kendall>  Steve Harris doing some work keeping up with tests
16:35:24 <kendall> ericp, yoshio, jos, dan, andy, kendall -- have cvs write access
16:36:11 <kendall> Issues list is being handled by ericp
16:36:13 <Sebkha> Sebkha has joined #dawg
16:36:18 <kendall> but he'd like to have some help
16:38:36 <kendall> con of test driven development is that you need a separate process or structure that worries about design goodness
16:38:46 <kendall> danc: before we close an issue, we'll need a test
16:38:56 <JosD> JosD has joined #dawg
16:39:15 <kendall> good for regression and unforeseen side-effects
16:39:25 <kendall> err, test drive devel
16:45:50 <kendall> (group members say where they are re: initial designs...)
16:47:20 <DanC_jam> RobS: in sum, I like adopting XQuery to querying RDF. I don't like BRQL.
16:48:10 <DanC_jam> AndyS: I like BRQL. I think the XQuery-based designs leave too much of the burden on the app developer, and don't straightfowrardly express RDF queries.
16:48:41 <DanC_jam> Simon: the WHERE clause in RDQL looks abstractly simple, so I like that.
16:48:52 <kendall> Jos: supports N3QL
16:49:42 <kendall> Jos also likes rdql/brql, prefers n3ql because it's "all in triples"
16:50:19 <kendall> Jos -- have brql as a strawman and an n3ql serialization (?)
16:53:10 <DanC_jam> (hmm... perhaps a rules workshop would be useful to inform this WG)
16:53:24 <kendall> yoshio -- brql and n3ql
16:53:32 <Zakim> Zakim has joined #dawg
16:54:43 <kendall> Hiroyuki -- leaning toward brql
16:54:46 <DanC_jam> HiroyukiS: I think those familiar with the semantic web will support BRQL, being familiar with RDQL, but for the whole web community, I'm not sure...
16:54:55 <Yoshio> My concern is that the concrete language shold much in common wiht the possible language to be used in the higher level of the layer cake.
16:54:58 <DanC_jam> ... I think BRQL is a reasonable starting piont.
16:56:04 <Yoshio> The concrete language should be able to be called by the higher languae, or should be extended to the languge 
16:58:42 <kendall> DIE PUNY HUMANS!
16:59:25 <DaveB> DaveB has joined #dawg
17:00:54 <kendall> howard -- xsrql is beautiful, elegant, easy to implemet! :>
17:02:53 <DaveB> :)
17:03:26 <DanC_jam> DanC: the RDQL WHERE clause feel like it has 4 corners around it. Parts of BRQL feel like premature standardization, to me, but I'm reasonably confident that we can work the features into a more regular form, ala iTQL or N3QL
17:04:15 <kendall> ericp -- worries about a false sense of familiarity among end users for a language with sql-like syntax
17:04:41 <kendall> ericp -- worried about federation tradeoffs
17:06:42 <kendall> erip -- still prefers algae; n3ql works fine; unsure of the value of it being a series of statements.
17:07:27 <DanC_jam> KC: not much to add over what I/we put in the survey form.
17:07:30 <ericP> kendal: i don't have an XQuery processor lying around
17:07:32 <DanC_jam> [which isn't public yet, btw]
17:08:23 <ericP> kendal: convincing real world people to use [dawg-ql]
17:08:41 <ericP> ... even a false-sense of familiarty is helpful
17:09:05 <ericP> ... i'm conservative. [RdfDB] family is the most implemented
17:10:11 <ericP> ... therefor refer to RDQL or BRQL
17:10:13 <kendall> kendaLL <-- KENDAll <-- two l's please :>
17:10:37 <ericP> llll
17:12:15 <kendall> December meeting scheduled for 1-2 Dec in Las Vegas
17:13:36 <kendall> danc proposes to keep it in LV and put it early Jan
17:14:25 <DanC_jam> s/proposes/leans toward/ (I'm not offering to host)
17:17:11 <DanC_jam> RESOLVED: to recind the 1-2 Dec ftf date.
17:17:23 <DanC_jam> ACTION EricP: find out when/where the W3C tech plenary is in 2005
17:20:21 <DanC_jam> break for :15
17:38:39 <DanC_jam> hmm... just realized... we're preparing Howard's presentation 20minutes early... who's planning to call in? Just Dave?
17:45:57 <DanC_jam> Zakim, this will be dawg
17:45:57 <Zakim> ok, DanC_jam; I see SW_DAWG(f2f)2:00PM scheduled to start in 15 minutes
17:47:54 <afs> afs has joined #dawg
17:49:44 <DanC_jam> </break>
17:49:53 <kendall> Howard's XsRQL Presentation
17:50:15 <DanC_jam> Zakim, remind us in 20 minutes to think again about how long this presentation should last
17:50:15 <Zakim> ok, DanC_jam
17:51:29 <DanC_jam> (Howard is projecting from his laptop. no slides etc.)
17:53:14 <DaveB> I am planning to dial in
17:53:36 <DanC_jam> JosD: what data are you querying against? Howard: some vCard data I found when looking at AndyS's stuff
17:54:25 <DanC_jam> KH: parsing with ARP. built my own triplestore in Java.
17:54:31 <DanC_jam> HK, that is
17:54:47 <DanC_jam> HK demonstrates dawg:debug-sticky;
17:54:57 <DanC_jam> which uses XQuery prolog syntax
17:55:50 <DanC_jam> HK: the prolog thing is useful; could be added to RDQL or whatnot
17:57:44 <JosD> JosD has joined #dawg
18:00:28 <DanC_jam> DanC: is it OK to do "distinct" processing even when it wasn't requested? does this proposal specify the count=8 in the non-distinct case? HK: yes
18:00:49 <DanC_jam> HK: yes, all correct implementations do count=8
18:02:13 <kendall> @* -> returns all the predicates
18:02:39 <kendall> @*/* -> returns the object that is connected to every predicate
18:03:02 <kendall> xsrql -> path language returns the *last* thing in each path
18:03:59 <kendall> ',' operator concatenates sequences
18:07:13 <DanC_jam> AndyS: can't have sequences of sequences in the Query data model, right? HK: right.
18:08:26 <Zakim> SW_DAWG(f2f)2:00PM has now started
18:08:33 <Zakim> +Kevin
18:08:48 <TomAdams> TomAdams has joined #dawg
18:09:15 <KevinW> KevinW has joined #dawg
18:09:15 <DaveB-lap> DaveB-lap has joined #dawg
18:09:22 <Zakim> +RobS
18:09:35 <DanC_jam> Zakim, who is on the phone?
18:09:35 <Zakim> On the phone I see Kevin, RobS
18:09:45 <DanC_jam> daveb? wanna call in?
18:09:53 <DaveB-lap> yup, will do
18:10:15 <Zakim> DanC_jam, you asked to be reminded at this time to think again about how long this presentation should last
18:10:50 <Zakim> +??P2
18:11:00 <DanC_jam> Zakim, ??P2 is DaveB
18:11:00 <Zakim> +DaveB; got it
18:14:42 <kendall> A sample XsRQL query:
18:14:45 <Zakim> +Tom_Adams
18:15:01 <kendall> declare prefix vcard: <http://www.w3.org/2001/vcard-rdf/3.0/#>;
18:16:02 <kendall> * [ @vcard:FN = "John Smith" ]/@vcard:N/*/@vcard:Family
18:17:00 <kendall> oops, make that:
18:17:14 <kendall> */@vcard:N/*/@vcard:Family
18:19:53 <DanC_jam> ref: XsRQL: an XQuery-style Query Language for RDF http://www.fatdog.com/xsrql.html
18:27:29 <AndyS> for $libby := *[ @foaf:mbox = "mailto:libby.miller@bristol.ac.uk" ] 
18:27:29 <AndyS> return
18:27:29 <AndyS>       { $libby, @newFoaf:Name, $libby/@foaf:name/* }
18:28:31 <kendall> will return ->
18:28:53 <kendall> (<...libby1>, foaf:name, "Libby", <libby2>, foaf:name, "Libby2")
18:28:59 <kendall> i.e., list is flattended
18:29:05 <kendall> er, flattened
18:34:20 <DanC_jam> Zakim, RobS is temporarily MeetingRoom
18:34:20 <Zakim> +MeetingRoom; got it
18:34:31 <DaveB-lap> did somebody write down how long Howard's impl estimate was?
18:34:58 <DanC_jam> I think he said he's 5 or 6 weeks into a 5 or 6 month implementation effort. for an in-memory architecture.
18:40:30 <kendall> full-time
18:40:41 <Yoshio> q+ to ask "XML is intrinsically a tree, while RDF is not (mesh, or even loopy) , won't this cause any trouble with path language?"
18:41:17 <DanC_jam> Zakim, who's on the phone?
18:41:17 <Zakim> On the phone I see Kevin, MeetingRoom, DaveB, Tom_Adams
18:41:21 <TomAdams> Remote applause
18:44:48 <TomAdams> Guys, Andy is very soft, can he come closer to the Mike please.
18:45:31 <DanC_jam> DanC: N3QL's motivation is integration with rules, diff, etc.
18:46:34 <AndyS> AndyS wants to separate design (functional expressivity) and syntax (the way its written)
18:46:40 <AndyS> (AndyS scribes)
18:47:14 <AndyS> Simon: if we have graph results, are we not doing a (simple) rules language 
18:47:35 <AndyS> DanC: rules => different shaped graphs 
18:47:53 <TomAdams> Re Abstract Syntax: I've had Simon ear bash me about this also, and I like it. We use it in Kowari to allow plugging in of different languages, e.g. iTQL & RDQL. 
18:48:40 <kendall> +1 to andy's separation
18:48:46 <AndyS> Semweb-cg has discussed a rules workshop but no decisions
18:49:49 <Yoshio> q-
18:50:06 <AndyS> AndyS: rules systems can include the feature of results feeding back into the KB
18:50:19 <AndyS> for them, we aren't doing rules yet
18:51:20 <AndyS> Rob: users want a clear way to write the things they want to do (example "or")
18:51:42 <Zakim> -Kevin
18:52:23 <AndyS> not use idioms to achive their tasks
18:53:46 <DanC_jam> RobS: universals seem to have few precedents in extant languages. e.g. "someone all of whose girlfriends are attractive" is hard to express
18:54:36 <AndyS> Rob: trade off of expressing in OWL or in the QL
18:56:39 <Yoshio> q+ to say if our language has capability to handle premises or graph unioning , it could lead to a smooth connection to the rules
18:56:52 <AndyS> Link to 4.6 here - should we have a ref to rules here ?
18:58:04 <AndyS> Enrico gave an example of inferred information 
18:58:23 <AndyS> Rob says this can't be expressed in triples: Jos disagrees
19:00:16 <AndyS> (Jos has emailed the list: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-dawg/2004JulSep/0074.html)
19:00:58 <AndyS> Dan floats the idea that we have text about things that are a good idea but we can't do in the WG timeframe
19:02:22 <kendall> the design objectives section of the current doc doesn't do that
19:02:26 <AndyS> Query processors may advertise their features ; queries may request features
19:02:30 <TomAdams> To follow up on general "good ideas", these can be punted off onto the SWBP&D WG...
19:04:00 <AndyS> Could use DObj for these things (good things we may not do)
19:04:24 <JosD> paper "Description Logic Programs: Combining Logic Programs with Description Logic" http://www.cs.man.ac.uk/~horrocks/Publications/download/2003/p117-grosof.pdf
19:04:58 <howardk> howardk has joined #dawg
19:05:54 <AndyS> ACTION Simon+Kendall, elaborate the rel. of rules and "construct" in the UC&R doc
19:06:51 <AndyS> AndyS recalls that PatH noted the user request for transformation of the RDF in his DQL feedback
19:06:59 <DanC_jam> ack yoshio
19:06:59 <Zakim> Yoshio, you wanted to say if our language has capability to handle premises or graph unioning , it could lead to a smooth connection to the rules
19:07:59 <AndyS> Yoshi notes that N3QL can support premises
19:08:18 <AndyS> s/Yoshi/Yoshio/
19:10:13 <AndyS> Yoshio: keep the additional triples in the query , not just the URI of the targets
19:10:46 <AndyS> Dan leans towards protocol support
19:11:30 <AndyS> Recursive query (inserting results into te federation of the source)
19:11:51 <Yoshio> http://www.w3.org/Team/Yoshio/DAWG-addenda040628.html
19:13:09 <kendall> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-dawg/2004AprJun/0793.html
19:13:35 <DanC_jam> and http://www.w3.org/2004/06/29-Yoshio/DAWG-addenda040628.html
19:13:35 <AndyS> http://www.w3.org/2004/06/29-Yoshio/DAWG-addenda040628.html
19:13:43 <AndyS> in public space
19:16:47 <AndyS> iTQL has a "GIVEN" clause for passing into a query variable bindings (used internally)
19:17:04 <AndyS> AndyS notes that ASemantics have a use case for passing in initial bindings
19:17:33 <AndyS> AndyS: this is not premises - adding triples into the query target spaces then querying
19:17:52 <AndyS> EricP: Algae is based around this (federation)
19:19:00 <Zakim> -Tom_Adams
19:19:09 <DaveB-lap> harsh :)
19:19:12 <TomAdams> Sorry guys... :(
19:19:37 <TomAdams> Yes, thanks!
19:19:58 <Zakim> +Tom_Adams
19:20:08 <AndyS> ACTION EricP, send ref about Algae motivation
19:20:18 <DanC_jam> . ACTION: EricP offer implementatino experience (in use case form?) with premises and algae
19:20:59 <AndyS> Eric was more thinking of initial bindings
19:21:01 <DanC_jam> ericP: hmm... premises or pre-bindings?
19:21:22 <DanC_jam> ACTION: EricP offer implementatino experience (in use case form?) with premises and algae
19:21:40 <TomAdams> My apologies all... Didn't realise that the phone system would do that!
19:21:57 <AndyS> UCs relavant: traffic, media conglomerate
19:22:24 <kendall> UC 2.3 and 2.5
19:24:49 <ericP> http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/perl/modules/W3C/Rdf/test/Federate0-alg.sh?rev=1.3&content-type=text/plain
19:25:12 <DaveB-lap> dialing out for now
19:25:17 <Zakim> -DaveB
19:25:18 <AndyS> Lunch until 2:00pm and talk about techie things : 10min summaries
19:25:34 <DanC_jam> lunch until 2pm... the lunch is longish, on the expectation that folks will have techincal discussions that they'll be interested to report from afer lunch.
19:25:58 <TomAdams> Thanks guys, I'll be signing off.
19:26:27 <Zakim> -Tom_Adams
19:30:23 <Zakim> -MeetingRoom
19:30:24 <Zakim> SW_DAWG(f2f)2:00PM has ended
19:30:25 <Zakim> Attendees were Kevin, DaveB, Tom_Adams, MeetingRoom
20:41:22 <DanC-AIM> Massimo, have you looked at xsrql?
20:41:59 <DanC-AIM> Bummer... I should have had you dial in while it was presented/discussed. But I guess you didn't miss too much.
21:02:46 <DanC_jam> (resuming after lunch...)
21:02:54 <DanC_jam> oops... wrong channel...
21:03:48 <AndyS> Eric reports on what he did on his hols
21:04:17 <AndyS> Context: query federation / query permis
21:04:57 <AndyS> Ship a set of bindings to seed the next query does not work if the target does inference that you can't
21:05:33 <AndyS> Contrast: variable bindins vs asserting the triples that caused those bindings
21:06:11 <AndyS> Also the item from a list issue
21:07:12 <AndyS> SimonR reports that Rob has convinced him XQuery is a good idea
21:07:21 <DanC_jam> s/convinced/nearly convinced/
21:08:43 <AndyS> -- Move to UC&R doc 
21:08:44 <Yoshio> Yoshio has joined #dawg
21:09:04 <AndyS> 3.6 Optional Match
21:09:18 <HiroyukiS> HiroyukiS has joined #DAWG
21:11:16 <AndyS> TBL opposed to optionals ; Dan worries about the time cost ; Eric has been persuaded it is needed
21:11:37 <Sebkha> Optional match advocacy: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-dawg/2004JulSep/0024.html
21:11:50 <AndyS> Rob: Users want formal organisation of data
21:12:08 <ericP> AndyS's OPTIONAL test cases expressed in BRQL: http://www.w3.org/2004/07/08-BRQL/#tests
21:12:10 <AndyS> Also: it is not a *requirement* as a priority
21:12:12 <ericP> (now on the mirrors)
21:12:33 <Sebkha> The fact that users WANT formally organized data doesn't help them when no such data happens to be available.
21:13:44 <JosD> JosD has joined #dawg
21:15:22 <AndyS> Rob illustrates with general disjunction is not currently a requirement but is as useful
21:16:31 <AndyS> Yoshio: danger of non-std extensions
21:16:40 <AndyS> if not included
21:17:15 <AndyS> Proposed wording in doc (Kendall, Andy)
21:18:01 <AndyS> Vote: for:  all except against:  1 (Rob) abstain: 1 (Jos)
21:18:29 <AndyS> ACCEPT: 3.6 with wording as v1.123
21:19:29 <AndyS> Move to "3.8 Bookmarkable Queries"
21:20:38 <AndyS> Does imply that query syntax is self-contained (stateless request)
21:21:59 <AndyS> And is HTTP not just SOAP
21:22:25 <AndyS> Strawpoll on move to Objective (most in favour)
21:22:44 <AndyS> Move to "3.10 Result Limits"
21:23:56 <AndyS> Rob: it makes sense only with sorting
21:24:02 <AndyS> Others disagree
21:26:49 <AndyS> Use case: library system / facteed browser
21:26:59 <AndyS> Agreement: offset+limit => sort
21:27:21 <AndyS> Kendall: The mobile phone example
21:31:38 <DanC_jam> Real-world use case for 3.10(a)
21:31:43 <DanC_jam> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-dawg-comments/2004Jul/0000.html
21:32:37 <DanC_jam> AndyS: most JDBC drivers deliver the whole result set before letting you get at rows...
21:32:58 <DanC_jam> ... because in, e.g. a 3-tier thingy, the query engine doesn't want to manage resources over time
21:33:12 <Yoshio> q+ to ask why  "sort and limit" seems to have no support here, it's so common in daily-life!
21:33:45 <AndyS> AndyS: example of implications for JDBC (e.g. default in MySQL)
21:34:57 <DanC_jam> ack robs
21:34:57 <Zakim> RobS, you wanted to discuss implementation experience with no limit support
21:35:36 <AndyS> Rob: Network Inference system does not have this feature
21:35:53 <DaveB> what feature?
21:35:57 <AndyS> Users terminate the query unsubtly
21:36:01 <AndyS> (LIMIT)
21:36:11 <DanC_jam> ack yoshio
21:36:11 <Zakim> Yoshio, you wanted to ask why  "sort and limit" seems to have no support here, it's so common in daily-life!
21:36:39 <HiroyukiS> HiroyukiS has joined #DAWG
21:37:12 <AndyS> Support for SORT: Simon worried about the cost of a sort
21:39:34 <AndyS> Discussion on "sort" : tradeoff of client and server compute power per user
21:42:04 <AndyS> Kendall: experience is that their apps UI wants "a few" results.  It currently gets whole results before going on.
21:42:31 <Yoshio> re: resource, what about "in-house" case?
21:42:51 <ericP> q+ to invoke SQL and HTTP experience
21:45:42 <AndyS> NetInf system is 3+-tier
21:45:57 <AndyS> so added functionality in business logic
21:46:04 <AndyS> s/added/add/
21:46:22 <kendall> for *web* apps, between arbitrary web clients and web servers, it seems that this 3 tier stuff is otiose
21:47:06 <AndyS> Rob: Its a question of priorities
21:47:32 <AndyS> Simon: LIMIT is trivially easy
21:47:50 <AndyS> and useful
21:49:00 <kendall> *and* likely to get done anyway
21:49:04 <howardk> otiose? let's eschew obfuscation please!
21:52:42 <kendall> kendall has joined #dawg
21:52:56 <DanC_jam> DanC_jam has joined #dawg
21:53:12 <AndyS> AndyS has joined #dawg
21:53:26 <AndyS> Strawpoll on "Limit" 
21:53:26 <AndyS> All: as objective
21:53:26 <AndyS> 7 as requirement
21:53:26 <AndyS> If we move it to be an objective: can Kendall craft text to explain why it is NOT an requirement
21:53:28 <HiroyukiS> HiroyukiS has joined #DAWG
21:53:35 <ericP> danc: limiting has an obvious syntergy with sort
21:53:47 <ericP> danc: sorting is not *in*
21:54:06 <AndyS> Connection between limit and sort should be noted
21:54:17 <ericP> ... implementations are deployed without it.
21:59:44 <Yoshio> Yoshio has joined #dawg
22:00:04 <DaveB> (limit sounded liked a rejected requirement to me from the irc.  We have never rejected one yet, IIRC)
22:00:13 <Yoshio> * sorry, I lost my guts :)
22:00:25 <AndyS> We are still discussing it - no vote yet
22:00:50 <AndyS> (we had a temp net glitch)
22:00:55 <DaveB> I'd go with limit only, no sorting, no offset.
22:01:04 <AndyS> +1
22:02:32 <AndyS> Req:7  Obj:2  Not at all:0
22:02:41 <AndyS> Dave - as requriment or objective
22:03:03 <DaveB> req
22:03:24 <howardk> howardk has joined #dawg
22:04:41 <Yoshio> * oh, I'm loosing the guts, again, it's too COOL  here
22:05:24 <AndyS> Vote: Network Inference formally objects
22:05:55 <ericP> RobS (Network Inference) objects: below his threshold for what should be on critical path.
22:06:09 <AndyS> ACCEPT: For: all \ Against:  1 Abst: 1
22:06:25 <ericP> ... falls below some other things (disjunction) that have been pushed to DO.
22:09:30 <AndyS> -- Move to 3.11 Iterative Query
22:09:40 <AndyS> Is this cursors?
22:11:36 <AndyS> Data points: it is the comment from Chris Wilper
22:11:51 <AndyS> http://www.w3.org/2003/12/swa/dawg-charter#protocol
22:12:20 <DanC_jam> 2.3 cursors and proofs http://www.w3.org/2003/12/swa/dawg-charter#protocol seems relevant
22:12:29 <kendall> daveb: do you support 3.11 iterative query?
22:12:36 <DaveB> abstain
22:12:40 <kendall> thx
22:13:07 <AndyS> Dan proposes that that there is no support at the current time.
22:13:27 <DanC_jam> Simon: streaming results seems to cover this
22:14:43 <AndyS> . ACTION: SimonR draft a reply to Chris Wilper and send draft to WG mailing list
22:14:59 <AndyS> ACTION: SimonR draft a reply to Chris Wilper and send draft to WG mailing list
22:15:03 <Yoshio> * Can't we control the temparature here? It's too cold for me
22:15:19 <JosD> was about http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-dawg-comments/2004Jul/0000.html
22:17:11 <AndyS> Dan suggests that the requirements list is closed-for-now: takes more effort to intro a new req
22:18:40 <AndyS> -- Discussion on disjunction
22:19:00 <AndyS> Simon: find people from NZ or Oz
22:19:58 <AndyS> Move discussion to tomorrow
22:20:03 <AndyS> -- Objectives
22:32:42 <Yoshio> * Thank you very much, Rob!
22:32:57 <DanC_jam> elaborating on closed-for-now... what I mean is: I'm not aware of any pending requirements. Before I'll spend group time on a requirement, you'll have to drum up a certain amount of support.
22:34:45 <AndyS> Scribe?
22:34:52 <ericP> oh yeah
22:35:01 <ericP> 4.1 Human-friendly Syntax
22:35:19 <ericP> danc: impossible to quantify or test
22:35:40 <ericP> [discussion of "easily"]
22:36:21 <ericP> robS: i think it's useless without "easily"
22:36:59 <ericP> simon: i think "easily" could be taken as an accesibility issue.
22:38:49 <ericP> danc: trying to figure out if this is worht the screen real estate
22:39:13 <ericP> ... i think it's worth communicating this with our audience
22:40:02 <ericP> RESOLVED: 4.1 accepted. no objection or abstentions
22:40:17 <ericP> 4.2 Provenance
22:41:06 <ericP> implementation experience: 5 implementors
22:41:27 <ericP> howard: natural piece of data i keep
22:42:53 <ericP> ericP: without it, trust model would go away
22:43:42 <ericP> kendal: our only paying client (intelligence community) wants it. lab would close up without it
22:43:45 <ericP> l
22:44:30 <ericP> kendalll: at query lang, you find a few kinds of designs. most common is quads.
22:45:20 <ericP> Jos: if it's published on the web (has a URI), is that enough?
22:46:09 <ericP> kendall: i believe so.
22:46:26 <ericP> RobS: worried about defining provenance
22:46:43 <ericP> ... we don't think we've impelemented provenance
22:47:04 <ericP> ... RDF says [ reificiation process ]
22:49:42 <ericP> AndyS: BRQL spec is not about provenance
22:49:49 <ericP> ... it's about data management.
22:50:20 <ericP> ... remove this model. replace with that model.
22:51:32 <ericP> ... next step is to offer that to the user (implies quads).
22:51:52 <ericP> ... next step is to offer it to the user in the QL
22:52:06 <ericP> ... every other impl of RDQL impelements quads.
22:52:13 <ericP> ... thinking about putting it into jena
22:52:39 <DanC_jam> RobS's point about this being out of scope is fairly well made. The chair considers this provenance/source stuff to be on the edge of our charter.
22:52:43 <ericP> kendall: we specifically need data management.
22:54:15 <ericP> simon: we were a pure quads impl.
22:55:09 <ericP> ... for symmetry, we offered that to the QL.
22:55:28 <ericP> ... we don't use it terribly often
22:55:36 <ericP> ... we use it for security.
22:55:55 <ericP> ... it would be insane securing individual models.
22:56:01 <ericP> s/models/statements/
22:58:36 <AndyS> ACTION: Andy+Kendall, reword 4.2
22:58:52 <ericP> andyS: not sure what to put in for inferred triples
22:58:54 <DaveB> how reword?
22:59:08 <DaveB> I don't want no fuzzy 4th part of a "triple"
22:59:10 <AndyS> Remove provenace: more about data management and source
22:59:59 <ericP> ACTION kendall, andy: write up a new wording of 4.2 Provenance that focuses on data management
23:00:43 <ericP> strawman results: support except for robS
23:02:03 <DaveB> eh?
23:02:35 <ericP> folks would support 4.2 as a DO if it was rephrased per kendall and andy's action item
23:02:38 <AndyS> We had a strawpoll to test the water
23:02:59 <ericP> it was as warm as bath water
23:02:59 <DaveB> okay.  you'll also be reading the logs sometime and wondering what you recorded ;)
23:03:43 <AndyS> Thanks for pointing out the unclarity
23:10:27 <kendall> it would help jos to add "in the queried graph" to 4.3, which I undertake to do.
23:12:21 <AndyS> This only makes sense only for variable bindings
23:17:25 <ericP> danc: 4.3 Non-existent Triples will cost the working group
23:17:42 <ericP> robS: we will implement it one way or another
23:18:59 <ericP> RESOLVED: "4.3 Non-existent Triples" accepted as a DO over abstentions from AndyS and Jos
23:29:11 <DanC_jam> ack ericp
23:29:11 <Zakim> ericP, you wanted to invoke SQL and HTTP experience
23:30:57 <Yoshio> q+ to say how one implement this is another thing
23:34:56 <Yoshio> * and this is not a requirement but an objective design
23:37:00 <DanC_jam> ack yoshio
23:37:00 <Zakim> Yoshio, you wanted to say how one implement this is another thing
23:47:48 <ericP> ACTION simon: write a union query version
23:48:44 <ericP> 4.5 Aggregate Query tabled for now
23:49:58 <ericP> danc: how many people like "4.9 Boolean Results" as written
23:50:06 <ericP> ?
23:50:07 <ericP> 5
23:50:43 <ericP> danc: do you not yes or know queries?
23:50:54 <ericP> robS: yes
23:51:22 <DanC_jam> hmm... how about: yes/no questions should be straightfoward to express.
23:51:23 <Yoshio> know queries?
23:52:51 <ericP> yoshio: we can't adopt this without adopting non-existent triples
23:55:45 <ericP> simon: not happy with boolean nature
23:55:56 <Yoshio> sorry, but I remember we ADOPTED 4.3!
23:56:41 <ericP> Resolved: accept "yes/no questions should be straightfoward to express"
23:58:02 <ericP> ACTION Kendall: remove 4.4 User-specifiable Serialization