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]

+Kendall_Clark

14:29:18 [rob]

rob has joined #dawg

14:29:39 [Zakim]

+Kevin

14:29:51 [Zakim]

+??P27

14:30:13 [DanC]

agenda + Convene, take roll, review agenda http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-dawg/2004JulSep/0114.html

14:30:22 [DanC]

agenda + Review Carlsbad meeting record

14:30:28 [Zakim]

+RobS

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]

+DanC

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 http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-dawg/2004JulSep/0114.html" 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]

+Tom_Adams

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 http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/DataAccess/ftf2 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]

so RESOLVED.

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]

no

14:49:56 [kendall]

yoshio: cool, haven't seen it yet.

14:49:56 [DanC]

Real-world use case for 3.10(a) http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-dawg-comments/2004Jul/0000.html

14:50:31 [Yoshio]

it is http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-dawg/2004JulSep/0129.html

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]

iirc

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]

q?

14:55:42 [kendall]

Named Graphs, Provenance and Trust

14:55:44 [kendall]

http://www.hpl.hp.com/techreports/2004/HPL-2004-57.html

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]

q-

14:55:54 [rob]

disjunction?

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]

http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-dawg/2004JulSep/0129.html

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 http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-dawg/2004JulSep/0129.html

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]

Yes

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]

-RobS

15:06:28 [DanC]

http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/DataAccess/issues

15:06:31 [rob]

eek!

15:06:35 [Zakim]

-SimonR

15:06:46 [DanC]

shall I adjourn the meeting and we just chat?

15:06:56 [Zakim]

+RobS

15:07:02 [SimonR]

Wow, that was good timing. :)

15:07:34 [DanC]

ADJOURN.

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]

-Kevin

15:08:44 [KevinW]

KevinW has left #DAWG

15:09:10 [ericP]

http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/DataAccess/BRQL/

15:09:40 [DanC]

rq23

15:09:49 [DanC]

ql432987

15:11:10 [TomAdams]

What about just: http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/DataAccess/QL/ ??

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]

-RobS

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]

s/RSS/RRS/

15:13:56 [ericP]

RRSAgent, pointer?

15:13:56 [RRSAgent]

See http://www.w3.org/2004/07/20-dawg-irc#T15-13-56

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

http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/DataAccess/rq23/

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]

heh.

15:23:11 [Zakim]

-DanC

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]

-Kendall_Clark

15:23:35 [Zakim]

-Yoshio

15:23:56 [SimonR]

I didn't write it myself, so naturally it doesn't exist. ;)

15:23:59 [TomAdams]

Bye!

15:24:14 [Zakim]

-Tom_Adams

15:24:16 [Zakim]

-EricP

15:24:18 [TomAdams]

TomAdams has left #dawg

15:24:27 [SteveH]

bye

15:24:27 [Zakim]

-HP

15:24:31 [Zakim]

-SteveH

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" -- http://foldoc.doc.ic.ac.uk/foldoc/foldoc.cgi?query=disjunction&action=Search

15:32:24 [Yoshio]

while conjunction has a match ???

15:34:03 [DanC]

and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Horn_clause

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]

yes

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]

yes

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]

yet

16:30:45 [Yoshio]

yes?

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]

yes

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