IRC log of dawg on 2004-07-20

Timestamps are in UTC.

14:28:54 [RRSAgent]
RRSAgent has joined #dawg
14:29:08 [DanC]
DanC has changed the topic to: RDF Data Access 20 July
14:29:16 [Zakim]
14:29:18 [rob]
rob has joined #dawg
14:29:39 [Zakim]
14:29:51 [Zakim]
14:30:13 [DanC]
agenda + Convene, take roll, review agenda
14:30:22 [DanC]
agenda + Review Carlsbad meeting record
14:30:28 [Zakim]
14:30:29 [TomAdams]
TomAdams has joined #dawg
14:30:32 [DanC]
agenda + Web Services Directory use cases
14:30:41 [DanC]
agenda + Toward updated Use Cases and Requirements publication
14:30:45 [ericP]
zakim, who is here?
14:30:45 [Zakim]
On the phone I see EricP, Yoshio, SteveH, Kendall_Clark, Kevin, ??P27, RobS
14:30:47 [Zakim]
On IRC I see TomAdams, rob, RRSAgent, kendall, SimonR, Zakim, SteveH, KevinW, DanC, Yoshio, AndyS_, ericP
14:30:48 [DanC]
agenda + Test case maintenance
14:30:52 [Zakim]
+ +1.714.539.aaaa
14:31:06 [Zakim]
14:31:29 [ericP]
zakim, ??P27 is HP
14:31:29 [Zakim]
+HP; got it
14:31:49 [ericP]
zakim, HP has AndyS, DaveB
14:31:49 [Zakim]
+AndyS, DaveB; got it
14:31:55 [DanC]
Zakim, next agendum
14:31:55 [Zakim]
agendum 1. "Convene, take roll, review agenda" taken up [from DanC]
14:32:00 [DanC]
Zakim, who's on the phone?
14:32:00 [Zakim]
On the phone I see EricP, Yoshio, SteveH, Kendall_Clark, Kevin, HP, RobS, +1.714.539.aaaa, DanC
14:32:02 [Zakim]
HP has AndyS, DaveB
14:32:03 [ericP]
zakim, aaaa is SimonR
14:32:03 [Zakim]
+SimonR; got it
14:32:07 [DanC]
Zakim, who's on the phone?
14:32:07 [Zakim]
On the phone I see EricP, Yoshio, SteveH, Kendall_Clark, Kevin, HP, RobS, SimonR, DanC
14:32:09 [Zakim]
HP has AndyS, DaveB
14:32:38 [DanC]
scribe: rob
14:33:20 [DanC]
agenda + objective 4.2 provenance/data management
14:33:41 [DanC]
agenda + XQuery requirement/objective
14:33:48 [Zakim]
14:34:51 [DanC]
next meeting: 27 July. DaveB to scribe.
14:35:03 [ericP]
regrets: Howard Katz, Alberto Reggiori, Enrico Franconi, Jim Hendler, Jos De_Roo
14:35:12 [ericP]
(from dawg list)
14:35:33 [ericP]
... and Hiroyuki Sato
14:35:36 [rob]
all actions listed in agenda to be continued without discussion...
14:36:03 [DanC]
Zakim, next agendum
14:36:03 [Zakim]
agendum 2. "Review Carlsbad meeting record" taken up [from DanC]
14:36:32 [rob]
Dan wants to add links to NI objections to meeting record.
14:37:15 [DanC]
PROPOSED: to accept 1.33 plus minor edits by DanC
14:37:18 [rob]
support for approving the record as is, with Dan making minor edits over the next week
14:37:21 [DanC]
14:37:59 [DanC]
Zakim, next agendum
14:37:59 [Zakim]
agendum 3. "Web Services Directory use cases" taken up [from DanC]
14:38:08 [rob]
Dan notified semantic web group about XQuery issue, but action ongoing
14:38:17 [kendall]
I can barely hear DanC over the loud typing.
14:38:24 [rob]
Zakim, mute me
14:38:24 [Zakim]
RobS should now be muted
14:38:34 [rob]
Zakim, unmute me
14:38:34 [Zakim]
RobS should no longer be muted
14:39:06 [DanC]
ACTION: RobS write email to Farrukh about traversing a taxonomy, continues.
14:39:12 [rob]
Zakim, mute me
14:39:12 [Zakim]
RobS should now be muted
14:39:15 [DanC]
Zakim, next agendum
14:39:15 [Zakim]
agendum 4. "Toward updated Use Cases and Requirements publication" taken up [from DanC]
14:39:22 [rob]
(I think I'm the loud typist this morning.)
14:40:01 [rob]
Kendall: 6-8 outstanding changes to make to doc
14:40:36 [rob]
Kendall: plan to finish by end of tomorrow (Wed)
14:40:53 [rob]
Kendall: should be reviewed by other members by next Tuesday
14:41:17 [rob]
changes include all results from f2f
14:41:43 [rob]
AndyS: date didn't change when rev number changes
14:42:02 [rob]
Kendall: try to address that; tool problem
14:42:47 [rob]
would be good to link to meeting minutes suggesting changes in the doc's changelog
14:43:02 [rob]
kendall: good idea
14:43:21 [rob]
Zakim, unmute me
14:43:21 [Zakim]
RobS should no longer be muted
14:43:29 [rob]
Zakim, mute me
14:43:29 [Zakim]
RobS should now be muted
14:43:58 [rob]
simon meant to write about CONSTRUCT
14:44:05 [rob]
kendall: not crucial in short term
14:44:25 [kendall]
sorry, i meant: not crucial for the impending UC&R release
14:44:35 [rob]
eric to continue...
14:44:52 [rob]
are we re-wording his action?
14:45:10 [rob]
eric's work unlikely to be in next publication
14:45:27 [ericP]
ACTION ericP: send federation use case motivating premises (in Algae)
14:45:41 [rob]
kendall: a few actions could affect UC&R
14:45:56 [rob]
kendall: should we push back publication?
14:46:15 [rob]
kendall: Aug 1 was pulled out of his "hat"
14:46:41 [rob]
AndyS would be fine if provenance isn't in next publication
14:46:49 [kendall]
it will be, fwiw
14:47:32 [rob]
andys: if waiting 2 more weeks for publication means a couple more use cases, it's worth holding up publication
14:48:04 [rob]
kendall: ebXML use case is almost ready; disjunction use case needs to be added
14:48:04 [TomAdams]
kendall, Is Jim H in town this week?
14:48:22 [ericP]
i'm having around 5% loss from occasional 30 second cut-outs
14:48:24 [kendall]
Tom: I think so
14:48:51 [TomAdams]
kendall, Thanks, I owe him a phone call to discuss the UDDI use case, will follow up this week. Thanks.
14:48:53 [rob]
kendall: no use case clearly motivates disjunction right now
14:49:12 [Yoshio]
please also take a look at my comments on wording of disjunction requirement
14:49:12 [rob]
Dan: no strong preference on publication date
14:49:31 [kendall]
Yoshio: can you paste a pointer to those comments here?
14:49:42 [Yoshio]
I sent a mail today
14:49:43 [rob]
Yoshio, is that a request to add that to the agenda for today?
14:49:56 [Yoshio]
14:49:56 [kendall]
yoshio: cool, haven't seen it yet.
14:49:56 [DanC]
Real-world use case for 3.10(a)
14:50:31 [Yoshio]
it is
14:50:53 [rob]
who is that?
14:50:59 [TomAdams]
Tom to take action from Simon
14:51:05 [rob]
Tom is taking Simon's action; which action was that?
14:51:25 [kendall]
rob: to reply to Chris Wilper's comments on the public-rdf-dawg-comments list
14:51:29 [kendall]
14:52:27 [kendall]
hmm, Yoshio's comments re: disjunction are worth putting on our agenda here, if possible
14:52:28 [rob]
Tom: I like the provenance objective
14:52:55 [TomAdams]
As implementors, I think Tucana should make comments on this.
14:53:11 [TomAdams]
More specifically, Andy's re-wording
14:53:18 [kendall]
zakim, mute me
14:53:18 [Zakim]
Kendall_Clark should now be muted
14:53:23 [kendall]
zakim, unmute me
14:53:23 [Zakim]
Kendall_Clark should no longer be muted
14:53:28 [rob]
Zakim, unmute me
14:53:28 [Zakim]
RobS should no longer be muted
14:53:49 [rob]
Zakim, mute me
14:53:49 [Zakim]
RobS should now be muted
14:54:15 [rob]
rob: I don't like the provenance objective
14:54:41 [kendall]
q+ to point out the named graphs "movement"
14:55:01 [Yoshio]
As an objective, I do like provenence
14:55:04 [rob]
(scribe isn't following the Andy-Dan discussion)
14:55:17 [kendall]
14:55:42 [kendall]
Named Graphs, Provenance and Trust
14:55:44 [kendall]
14:55:49 [rob]
AndyS has rewritten provenance requirement; we'll put it in the doc and see what people think.
14:55:51 [kendall]
14:55:54 [rob]
14:56:05 [rob]
Zakim, unmute me
14:56:06 [Zakim]
RobS should no longer be muted
14:56:44 [rob]
kendall likes Yoshio's points
14:56:45 [Yoshio]
It is a followup for what I tried to say in the f2f
14:57:07 [Yoshio]
tried, but failed (^_^;)
14:57:10 [kendall]
Yoshio's comments on disjunction requirement
14:57:11 [kendall]
14:58:12 [Yoshio]
Well I'd like everybody to take closer look taking time
14:58:21 [rob]
Not sure about rewording of requirement; we'll have a bit more email discussion.
14:58:23 [rob]
Zakim, mute me
14:58:23 [Zakim]
RobS should now be muted
14:58:24 [DanC]
ACTION DanC: follow up to
14:59:06 [rob]
Zakim, unmute me
14:59:06 [Zakim]
RobS should no longer be muted
14:59:14 [DanC]
what grows is the results.
15:00:38 [Yoshio]
15:00:42 [rob]
Zakim, mute me
15:00:42 [Zakim]
RobS should now be muted
15:00:51 [DanC]
Zakim, next agendum
15:00:51 [Zakim]
agendum 5. "Test case maintenance" taken up [from DanC]
15:02:01 [rob]
Dan: Jos should relay to SteveH feedback on maintenance of tests
15:02:07 [rob]
(can't hear...)
15:03:24 [rob]
Steve, Eric, and Dan to coordinate on getting SteveH CVS write access
15:03:32 [DanC]
Zakim, next agendum
15:03:32 [Zakim]
agendum 6. "objective 4.2 provenance/data management" taken up [from DanC]
15:03:47 [DanC]
andy's action done; discussion continues
15:03:51 [DanC]
Zakim, next agendum
15:03:51 [Zakim]
agendum 6 was just opened, DanC
15:03:56 [DanC]
Zakim, close agendum 6
15:03:56 [Zakim]
agendum 6 closed
15:03:57 [Zakim]
I see 1 item remaining on the agenda:
15:03:58 [Zakim]
7. XQuery requirement/objective [from DanC]
15:03:59 [DanC]
Zakim, next agendum
15:03:59 [Zakim]
agendum 6 was just opened, DanC
15:04:42 [DanC]
Zakim, take up agendum 5
15:04:42 [Zakim]
agendum 5. "Test case maintenance" taken up [from DanC]
15:04:50 [rob]
eric: tests have been kept in n3ql doc; it would be good to integrate with Steve's tests
15:05:28 [rob]
BRQL doc is in DAWG space; it will be edited there
15:05:40 [kendall]
eric: i'm willing to help edit it, if needed
15:06:16 [SimonR]
Erk, my calling card is about to drop me out of the teleconference.
15:06:25 [Zakim]
15:06:28 [DanC]
15:06:31 [rob]
15:06:35 [Zakim]
15:06:46 [DanC]
shall I adjourn the meeting and we just chat?
15:06:56 [Zakim]
15:07:02 [SimonR]
Wow, that was good timing. :)
15:07:34 [DanC]
15:07:34 [rob]
meeting adjourned. Yippee.
15:08:31 [kendall]
I'm willing to make that a real offer now, FWIW.
15:08:43 [Zakim]
15:08:44 [KevinW]
KevinW has left #DAWG
15:09:10 [ericP]
15:09:40 [DanC]
15:09:49 [DanC]
15:11:10 [TomAdams]
What about just: ??
15:11:20 [kendall]
or just ../design
15:11:34 [rob]
we might have different design docs for protocol
15:11:48 [kendall]
good pt
15:11:57 [Zakim]
15:12:10 [rob]
bloody mobile phones...
15:12:44 [rob]
never mind. How/when does the RSSAgent post a log?
15:13:10 [rob]
15:13:56 [ericP]
RRSAgent, pointer?
15:13:56 [RRSAgent]
15:14:27 [SimonR]
Does anyone else feel that 4.2 (Provenance -> Support for RDF Aggregation graphs) is beginning to blur into 4.5 (Aggregate query -> union query)?
15:15:18 [rob]
I might object to both, but if 4.5 can be pure protocol I might find a way to abstain.
15:15:26 [kendall]
there's a connection there; but i don't see any blurring.
15:16:04 [DanC]
re put "obsolete" with a pointer to the new one under "version"...
15:16:14 [ericP]
danc: re current BRQL spec: no redirect or tombstone
15:16:18 [DanC]
... and under "status" just say: this was discussed at <a href="ftf2">...</
15:17:21 [TomAdams]
Is this going to be a canonical URI for the QL?
15:17:40 [kendall]
No, presumably not.
15:17:46 [kendall]
15:17:47 [DanC]
canonical in what sense?
15:19:45 [SimonR]
Tom: I doubt there can be a canonical URI before we finally name the QL. :)
15:20:14 [TomAdams]
Yeah, that's why I was suggesting a generic "QL" for query language...
15:21:14 [DanC]
that presumes the "ql" doc will never have any protocol stuff in it.
15:21:23 [ericP]
15:21:25 [kendall]
not really
15:21:35 [SimonR]
I think it'd make sense to call it BRQL for now.
15:21:38 [TomAdams]
Ah, I see. OK. Understood.
15:21:40 [kendall]
it just presumes that the protocol stuff doesn't get 'named' in the URI :>
15:22:06 [kendall]
i like /working-draft-design personally, but i guess that's too guessable or something
15:22:54 [SimonR]
On the topic of protocol, I completely flaked out at the F2F and forgot that Kowari has a SOAP interface. That really should've been mentioned during the tail-end protocol discussion.
15:23:07 [DanC]
15:23:11 [Zakim]
15:23:15 [kendall]
SimonR: I was gonna raise that but was deferring to you :>
15:23:28 [Yoshio]
bye bye
15:23:33 [Zakim]
15:23:35 [Zakim]
15:23:56 [SimonR]
I didn't write it myself, so naturally it doesn't exist. ;)
15:23:59 [TomAdams]
15:24:14 [Zakim]
15:24:16 [Zakim]
15:24:18 [TomAdams]
TomAdams has left #dawg
15:24:27 [SteveH]
15:24:27 [Zakim]
15:24:31 [Zakim]
15:24:32 [Zakim]
SW_DAWG()10:30AM has ended
15:24:33 [Zakim]
Attendees were EricP, Yoshio, SteveH, Kendall_Clark, Kevin, RobS, +1.714.539.aaaa, DanC, AndyS, DaveB, SimonR, Tom_Adams
15:25:18 [SteveH]
SteveH has left #dawg
15:25:53 [DanC]
wow... "No match for disjunction" --
15:32:24 [Yoshio]
while conjunction has a match ???
15:34:03 [DanC]
15:55:11 [Yoshio]
?! do you happen to think I don't understand the general meaning of "disjunction", Dan?
15:56:21 [Yoshio]
what I don't think is clear is the notion of "disjunction of graph patterns"
15:56:45 [Yoshio]
Is it a graph pattern? I don't think so.
15:56:56 [Yoshio]
Then what is it?
15:57:44 [rob]
It's a collection of graph patterns, with the definition clarified in the next phrase: at least one of the patterns must match.
15:58:14 [rob]
If the notion of "matching a graph pattern" makes any sense, then I'd say that matching a disjunction of graph patterns makes sense.
15:59:02 [rob]
(but it should be noted that I think the whole "graph pattern" terminology is quite convoluted)
15:59:44 [DanC]
I'm trying to figure out what it is you don't understand, yoshio. The phrase "disjunction of graph patterns" is quite a conventional use of the word "disjunction".
16:00:58 [DanC]
I'd like to move away from "graph pattern" but I think it's not all that wacky; it's kinda like "filename patterns" foo.* and such
16:01:41 [rob]
We more or less agreed that in this case it means "conjunction of triples", with some notion that variables fit in somehow...
16:02:10 [DanC]
16:02:26 [rob]
It's really the "variable" thing that makes it confusing, but it's not explicit whether variables must be bound, free, or something else.
16:03:35 [rob]
(The bound-versus-free issue is a concern to me, and even bigger is the problem that our "optional triples" are an entirely different thing.)
16:04:38 [Yoshio]
well, if the "disjunction of graph patterns" is a collection of graph patterns, then it is not obvious what "restrict matches based on a COLLECTION of graph patterns" means (or it is at least not defined)
16:04:59 [DanC]
yes, "restrict matches" is problematic.
16:05:12 [rob]
That's why it's clarified as part of the requirement: at least one must match.
16:05:50 [Yoshio]
in that saying what the "one" is meant for?
16:06:07 [Yoshio]
a match?
16:06:09 [rob]
my next meeting's starting; got to go...
16:06:26 [Yoshio]
ok thanks, talk in email
16:12:15 [DanC]
what's the problem with matching a collection of patterns, yoshio?
16:13:05 [DanC]
results(disjunction(P1, P2, ...), G) = union(results(P1, G), results(P2, G), ...)
16:13:46 [Yoshio]
I want to say, "That is what to be defined!"
16:14:20 [Yoshio]
I mean, it is what we want to define EXPLICITLY
16:14:55 [Yoshio]
but not what is said explicitly in the original wording
16:15:12 [DanC]
yes, it is what is said in that wording, if you take the conventional meaning of the words and phrases.
16:16:03 [DanC]
change "restrict" to "compute", perhaps.
16:16:51 [Yoshio]
well are you using ",at least one of which must be satisified by the query" part?
16:17:06 [DanC]
s/by the query/by the queried graph/ as we discussed
16:18:03 [Yoshio]
oh, I didn't put it into my record... I should have done so
16:22:50 [Yoshio]
then the antecedent of "which" is "the graph patterns", right?
16:26:31 [DanC]
16:28:39 [Yoshio]
OK, it solves my third question. Now returning to the point of explicity,
16:29:44 [Yoshio]
what is currently said is "to restrict matches BASED on a disjunction of graph patterns"
16:30:22 [Yoshio]
I don't think wha we want to define is cleary defined with just saying "BASED on"
16:30:32 [DanC]
right; we're not writing a specification
16:30:34 [DanC]
16:30:45 [Yoshio]
16:30:59 [Yoshio]
16:31:15 [DanC]
we don't need to completely specify how disjunction works in the requirements document.
16:31:44 [DanC]
eventually, we'll get to that part of the design, and we'll either claim to meet the requirement or change it.
16:34:05 [Yoshio]
Hmm, the notion made things look new to me (I'm not sure what I want to say...but)
16:35:13 [Yoshio]
Ok, I understand we don't have to specify HOW (the procedure) it works, but I think we have to specify WHAT is needed
16:37:07 [DanC]
yes, and we have: WHAT is: disjunction.
16:37:24 [DanC]
it might have been easier to just use the one word.
16:37:58 [yosi]
yosi has joined #dawg
16:38:13 [yosi]
yosi has left #dawg
16:38:16 [Yoshio]
Hmm, but what we have to do is to define what we mean by "disjunction" here?
16:38:51 [Yoshio]
s/here/here, isn't it?/
16:38:54 [DanC]
what we mean by disjuction isn't different from the normal dictionary definition, so I don't see why we need to say much.
16:41:57 [Yoshio]
Hmm, so we didn't share the goal, I wanted to make it clear to the reader what we mean by "disjunction", but you don't (you think leaving it to the conventional reading, or common sence, is Ok)
16:43:04 [DanC]
there's a time and place for being 100% crystal clear what we mean by disjunction, but I don't think it's in the requirements document. The requirements document is more for saying _why_ disjuction is a requirement.
16:43:41 [Yoshio]
You're right!
16:47:15 [Yoshio]
OK, I'm convinced. So our next step should be to ensure _why_ each requirement is needed is well said in our document.
16:47:28 [DanC]
16:49:23 [Yoshio]
I'll leave my personal interest in defining words to other documents.
16:49:49 [DanC]
it's great to have your careful review.
16:50:52 [Yoshio]
Thank YOU for helping me (re-)notice the aim of the UC&R
16:50:52 [DanC]
RRSAgent, stop