IRC log of dawg on 2004-10-19

Timestamps are in UTC.

14:29:12 [RRSAgent]

RRSAgent has joined #dawg

14:29:17 [Zakim]

+??P18

14:29:18 [Zakim]

+Yoshio

14:29:20 [SteveH]

Zakim, NickG is SteveH

14:29:20 [Zakim]

+SteveH; got it

14:29:26 [DanC]

Zakim, Nick_Gibbins is SteveH

14:29:26 [Zakim]

sorry, DanC, I do not recognize a party named 'Nick_Gibbins'

14:29:31 [Zakim]

+??P19

14:29:37 [Zakim]

+DanC

14:29:48 [DaveB]

agenda http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-dawg/2004OctDec/0133.html

14:29:51 [Zakim]

+Kendall_Clark

14:29:59 [AlbertoR]

AlbertoR has joined #dawg

14:30:15 [ericP]

zakim, ??P19 is SimonR

14:30:15 [Zakim]

+SimonR; got it

14:30:32 [Zakim]

+??P21

14:30:42 [TomAdams]

TomAdams has joined #dawg

14:30:46 [DaveB]

Zakim, ??P21 is DaveB

14:30:46 [Zakim]

+DaveB; got it

14:30:48 [Zakim]

+ +1.441.179.aaaa

14:30:50 [SteveH]

DaveB, I just added you tests the the page

14:31:04 [Zakim]

+AlbertoR

14:31:05 [DaveB]

+44 117 =bristol

14:31:25 [DaveB]

aloha

14:31:40 [AlbertoR]

buongiorno/buonpomeriggio

14:32:05 [Yoshio]

mahalo

14:32:31 [Zakim]

+[Tucana]

14:32:39 [TomAdams]

zakim, Tucana is TomAdams

14:32:39 [Zakim]

+TomAdams; got it

14:33:21 [DanC]

Zakim, who's on the phone?

14:33:21 [Zakim]

On the phone I see SteveH, EricP, HiroyukiS, Yoshio, SimonR, DanC, Kendall_Clark, DaveB, AndyS, AlbertoR, TomAdams

14:33:55 [SimonR]

We have regrets from HowardK and JosDeRoo.

14:34:17 [AlbertoR]

some last minute amendments http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-dawg/2004OctDec/0143.html

14:34:43 [DanC]

minutes 2004-10-12 http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-dawg/2004OctDec/0132.html ammended to show protocol action

14:35:12 [Yoshio]

Yoshio was also absent

14:35:22 [Yoshio]

no

14:35:28 [Yoshio]

oops, yes

14:35:32 [ericP]

rogr

14:35:43 [TomAdams]

I also sent regrets... ;)

14:35:55 [DanC]

RESOLVED: to adopt 0132 + 2 ammendments

14:36:02 [patH]

seconded

14:36:09 [kendall]

-ouch-, sorry. i'm a terrible scribe. I take an ACTION to *never* scribe again! :>

14:36:19 [DanC]

next meeting: Tuesday, October 26, 2004

14:36:26 [AndyS]

Regrets for next week. Will be on a plane.

14:36:29 [DanC]

Zakim, pick a scribe

14:36:29 [Zakim]

Not knowing who is chairing or who scribed recently, I propose AlbertoR

14:36:43 [SimonR]

TomAdams tentatively volunteers to scribe for next week.

14:36:54 [SimonR]

AlbertoR will be the backup scribe.

14:37:18 [DanC]

agenda + Convene, take roll, review record and agenda

14:37:24 [DanC]

agenda + Publication of SPARQL design and Data Access UC&R

14:37:31 [DanC]

agenda + Feedback on the SPARQL design

14:37:37 [DanC]

agenda + Web Services Constraints and Capabilities

14:37:43 [DanC]

agenda + SOURCE

14:37:47 [DanC]

Zakim, close agendum 1

14:37:47 [Zakim]

agendum 1 closed

14:37:48 [Zakim]

I see 4 items remaining on the agenda; the next one is

14:37:49 [Zakim]

2. Publication of SPARQL design and Data Access UC&R [from DanC]

14:37:51 [SimonR]

F2F5 logistics and walking tour data continue without discussion.

14:37:53 [DanC]

Zakim, next agendum

14:37:53 [Zakim]

agendum 2. "Publication of SPARQL design and Data Access UC&R" taken up [from DanC]

14:38:23 [SimonR]

SPARQL is published, much rejoiced! Thanks to EricP, AndyS, Kendall and all.

14:38:34 [patH]

wheee

14:38:42 [DanC]

Zakim, next agendum

14:38:42 [Zakim]

agendum 2 was just opened, DanC

14:38:49 [DanC]

Zakim, close this agendum

14:38:49 [Zakim]

agendum 2 closed

14:38:50 [Zakim]

I see 3 items remaining on the agenda; the next one is

14:38:51 [Zakim]

3. Feedback on the SPARQL design [from DanC]

14:38:56 [DanC]

Zakim, next agendum

14:38:56 [Zakim]

agendum 3. "Feedback on the SPARQL design" taken up [from DanC]

14:41:23 [SimonR]

Peter Patel-Schneider commented that "bound" is something procedural -- AndyS to discuss in email.

14:41:56 [SimonR]

Peter P-S raised an issue about the definition of subgraph.

14:42:57 [SimonR]

DanC suggests asking for a test case to clarify the subgraph issue.

14:43:01 [patH]

Where is all this raising by PFPS visible?

14:43:32 [DaveB]

patH: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-dawg/2004OctDec/0130.html is andy's reply to pfps

14:43:37 [patH]

ta

14:45:37 [kendall]

i've been seeing a good number of delicious links re: sparql. that's a good thing, i think.

14:46:11 [DaveB]

sparql has way more features than I want...

14:47:45 [SimonR]

(Some parenthetical mention of tolog)

14:47:58 [DaveB]

ref to Geoff's mail http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-dawg-comments/2004Oct/0008.html

14:48:18 [DanC]

. ACTION: PatH review SPARQL def'ns post-publication

14:48:28 [DanC]

continue that, Pat?

14:48:41 [DanC]

ACTION: PatH review SPARQL def'ns post-publication. CONTINUEs.

14:48:48 [patH]

yep, continue. I'll scan PFPS's input as well.

14:49:04 [DanC]

. ACTION Dirk: provide details about DB interfaces, re '?' and '$'

14:49:20 [DanC]

ACTION Dirk: provide details about DB interfaces, re '?' and '$'. CONTINUES.

14:49:29 [SimonR]

One more week on Dirk's item, or drop it.

14:50:50 [SimonR]

AlbertoR hasn't gone through the draft yet to be able to determine whether the DESCRIBE issue is addressed by the 12Oct draft. AlbertoR expects he'll take 2-3 weeks to get to it.

14:51:23 [DanC]

http://www.w3.org/TR/rdf-sparql-query/#describe

14:51:27 [SimonR]

AndyS believes that there is more work to be done on DESCRIBE. AndyS intends to post to the list.

14:51:53 [DaveB]

maybe GetData as a DESCRIBE return?

14:51:58 [SimonR]

AndyS would like the retract the CBD suggest in section 11.3 of the WD.

14:52:45 [AndyS]

... because CBD is currently fluid

14:55:06 [SimonR]

SteveH on disjunction: he's currently only happy with removing disjunction.

14:55:53 [patH]

Disjunction is logically troublesome unless stated veeeery carefully.

14:55:55 [SimonR]

AndyS is inclined to re-include disjunction.

14:57:00 [DaveB]

end of section 5 has a nested optional example

14:57:25 [SimonR]

TomAdam's action to send iTQL queries with examples of disjunction -- he has them prepared, but hasn't posted them to the list yet.

14:58:04 [SimonR]

TomA will post the the list immediately!

14:58:21 [DanC]

http://www.w3.org/TR/rdf-sparql-query/#ask

14:58:42 [SimonR]

DanC on yes-and-no questions: he's satisfied with the current spec.

14:59:42 [SimonR]

Kendall doesn't feel the current ASK definition is satisfactory.

15:00:24 [DaveB]

q+

15:01:05 [patH]

What counts as the response to a yes/no query?

15:01:06 [ericP]

q+ to propose that this will be best handled with a protocol document on the table next to the query lang

15:01:37 [ericP]

ack DaveB

15:01:42 [SimonR]

patH: An atomic boolean value, I believe.

15:02:00 [patH]

OK, ta.

15:02:55 [DanC]

Zakim, next agendum

15:02:55 [Zakim]

agendum 4. "Web Services Constraints and Capabilities" taken up [from DanC]

15:03:34 [DanC]

Zakim, take up agendum 3

15:03:34 [Zakim]

agendum 3. "Feedback on the SPARQL design" taken up [from DanC]

15:04:31 [AndyS]

q+ to talk about timescale

15:04:41 [ericP]

two example Y/N queries: Q: is there a Y/N example? A: no; Q: *now*, is there a Y/N example? A: yes, you just saw one.

15:04:57 [DanC]

ack ericp

15:04:57 [Zakim]

ericP, you wanted to propose that this will be best handled with a protocol document on the table next to the query lang

15:05:30 [DanC]

Zakim, next agendum

15:05:30 [Zakim]

agendum 4. "Web Services Constraints and Capabilities" taken up [from DanC]

15:05:42 [DanC]

TomAdams I've just posted the response to my action: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-dawg/2004OctDec/0148.html

15:05:53 [DanC]

Zakim, take up agendum 3

15:05:53 [Zakim]

agendum 3. "Feedback on the SPARQL design" taken up [from DanC]

15:06:02 [kendall]

fwiw, since I'm in some kind of doghouse, the present SPARQL ql draft satisfies me re: PREFIX, which I was issue owner of. I'm fine with it as written.

15:06:24 [ericP]

F2F logistics page --> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-dawg/2004OctDec/0144.html

15:06:28 [DanC]

apologies, kendall. I need to get a grip now and then.

15:06:33 [SimonR]

AndyS suggests another WD circa December, before the January meeting.

15:07:20 [ericP]

s/logistics page/logistics data/

15:07:29 [SimonR]

AndyS has done writing on value testing which he'd like to get comments upon.

15:07:43 [kendall]

zakim, mute me

15:07:43 [Zakim]

Kendall_Clark should now be muted

15:07:55 [SimonR]

AndyS is inclined to drop the UNSAID feature, based on it being procedural.

15:08:22 [kendall]

fwiw, our web services composition guy, Evren Sirin, wants UNSAID really badly. i've a meeting to talk to him about it.

15:08:59 [DanC]

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

15:09:07 [AndyS]

Kendall - I *need* :-) an example ASAP as email to the list

15:09:20 [kendall]

AndyS: okay

15:09:49 [DaveB]

I have issues with prefix

15:10:26 [kendall]

I missed that too

15:10:43 [DaveB]

Query ::= PrefixDecl* ReportFormat PrefixDecl*

15:11:07 [SimonR]

Ambiguity in the spec, if a prefix is defined multiply.

15:11:39 [DanC]

ACTION DaveB: illustrate prefix interaction details by example/test

15:12:19 [SimonR]

DanC requests for all to be ready to resolve next week the PREFIX issue.

15:12:21 [kendall]

fine

15:12:30 [ericP]

W3C December holidays publishing moritorium: last request on 20-Dec, last pub: 22-Dec

15:12:55 [DaveB]

when does it start again after the holidays?

15:12:55 [DanC]

Zakim, next agendum

15:12:55 [Zakim]

agendum 4. "Web Services Constraints and Capabilities" taken up [from DanC]

15:13:28 [ericP]

http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-dawg/2004OctDec/0145.html

15:14:18 [DaveB]

in http://www.w3.org/2004/08/20-ws-pol-pos/#query

15:14:52 [DaveB]

uses disjunction

15:16:20 [DaveB]

ericP: could you say in email their requirements - conjunction now, disjunction prepared to wait for it(? is that what you said?)

15:16:42 [Zakim]

-AndyS

15:17:18 [ericP]

DaveB, sure, will reply to my message

15:18:02 [DaveB]

who is the author of? http://www.w3.org/2004/08/20-ws-pol-pos/

15:18:12 [SimonR]

EricP: Policies are not expressed in RDF. Neither the capabilities or the policies are in RDF.

15:18:32 [kendall]

zakim, unmute me

15:18:32 [Zakim]

Kendall_Clark should no longer be muted

15:18:55 [patH]

Got to go myself. If y'all want me to do anything, send email. Bye.

15:19:46 [SimonR]

Kendall notes that the latest S

15:22:12 [kendall]

q+ to say something about wsdl2 and rdf

15:22:28 [DanC]

ack andys

15:22:28 [Zakim]

AndyS, you wanted to talk about timescale

15:23:06 [DanC]

ack kendall

15:23:06 [Zakim]

kendall, you wanted to say something about wsdl2 and rdf

15:24:22 [ericP]

that's WSDL describing RDF query, vs. a RDF mapping of a WSDL document.

15:24:27 [ericP]

foot in the door, i guess...

15:24:48 [SimonR]

Kendall: It would be good if for every WSDL you could get a deterministic RDF graph.

15:25:08 [ericP]

oops, i missed that.

15:25:23 [DanC]

Zakim, next agendum

15:25:23 [Zakim]

agendum 5. "SOURCE" taken up [from DanC]

15:25:52 [kendall]

erp, don't know what i meant by "deterministic RDF graph", so maybe that shld be ignored. :>

15:26:11 [SimonR]

DanC: Progress on SOURCE tests, but seems to still be haggling in progress.

15:26:58 [AlbertoR]

q+ tests manifest

15:27:17 [AlbertoR]

q+

15:29:04 [SimonR]

DaveB: The current syntax contains all the syntax for named containers/SOURCE.

15:29:32 [AlbertoR]

zakim, ack manifest

15:29:32 [Zakim]

I see AlbertoR on the speaker queue

15:31:15 [SimonR]

DanC asks whether the various different designs for SOURCE are indeed equivalent or not?

15:32:38 [SimonR]

SteveH says he can produce a test case that would behave differently between his implementation and AndyS's.

15:32:47 [SteveH]

Andy and I disagree about http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/DataAccess/tests/#dawg-source-simple-001

15:33:17 [kendall]

zakim, mute me

15:33:17 [Zakim]

Kendall_Clark should now be muted

15:33:26 [ericP]

that's the conformance police

15:33:31 [kendall]

sorry, fire engines, open windows, war on terror, etc.

15:33:32 [AlbertoR]

+1 SteveH - we woudl need SELECT DISTINCT

15:35:58 [SimonR]

Discussion about whether the current behavior in the tests -- that returning duplicate rows in a result is different from a result with just one copy of the same row.

15:38:23 [DanC]

ADJOURN.

15:38:23 [Zakim]

-Kendall_Clark

15:38:33 [SimonR]

Adjourn at 15:30Z.

15:39:15 [DanC]

hmm... I'd like to have a meeting just on the test harness. Should I use a weekly telcon for that? or should we do something ad-hoc? hmm.

15:40:16 [Zakim]

-Yoshio

15:40:25 [Zakim]

-TomAdams

15:40:39 [Zakim]

-HiroyukiS

15:46:56 [SimonR]

According to the actual spec, results are sets, not bags. Unless we amend it to be bags, we're just been fooled by the tabular form into thinking the duplicate rows are possible.

15:47:06 [SimonR]

been/being

15:48:17 [DanC]

yes, so I want to get the test harness fixed.

15:48:18 [DanC]

to match.

15:49:39 [SimonR]

I'd strongly prefer that people think of result sets as logical expressions: (($x=1 and $y=2) or ($x=3 and $y=4)) is the expanded version, and quite unambiguous.

15:51:16 [Zakim]

-DanC

15:52:25 [DanC]

it's still worth saying that (($x=1 and $y=2) or ($x=1 and $y=2)) reduces to ($x=1 and $y=2), though it's quite intuitive and lots of people would understand even if you didn't say that.

15:53:16 [SimonR]

DanC: I don't believe that's true. It has a different truth value when $x is 3 and $y is 4.

15:53:34 [SimonR]

Oh, sorry. My mistake! :)

15:58:24 [Zakim]

-DaveB

16:03:51 [DaveB]

hmm SOURCE _:a FROM <uri1>, _:b FROM <uri2>

16:04:27 [AlbertoR]

DaveB I tried that way with Andy :-) dawg:FROM - he did not buy it yet :-)

16:08:28 [Zakim]

-SimonR

16:08:29 [Zakim]

-AlbertoR

16:08:31 [Zakim]

-EricP

16:08:34 [Zakim]

-SteveH

16:08:35 [Zakim]

SW_DAWG()10:30AM has ended

16:08:36 [Zakim]

Attendees were Nick_Gibbins, EricP, Yoshio, SteveH, DanC, Kendall_Clark, SimonR, HiroyukiS, DaveB, +1.441.179.aaaa, AndyS, AlbertoR, [Tucana], TomAdams

16:08:44 [AlbertoR]

AlbertoR has left #dawg

18:29:51 [Zakim]

Zakim has left #dawg