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