14:25:42 RRSAgent has joined #dawg 14:25:42 logging to http://www.w3.org/2005/07/26-dawg-irc 14:26:11 Agenda: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-dawg/2005JulSep/0120.html 14:26:20 Meeting: RDF Data Access 14:26:38 HiroyukiS has joined #DAWG 14:26:40 'afternoon 14:27:49 SW_DAWG()10:30AM has now started 14:27:56 +??P0 14:27:59 zakim, ??P0 is AndyS 14:27:59 +AndyS; got it 14:28:29 +[IBMCambridge] 14:28:33 zakim, I am [IBMCambridge] 14:28:33 ok, LeeF, I now associate you with [IBMCambridge] 14:28:38 +Jeen_Broekstra 14:28:41 DaveB has joined #dawg 14:29:05 +HowardK 14:29:08 +??P26 14:29:24 hi dave. did you get that last email? 14:29:32 Zakim, ??P26 is HiroyukiS 14:29:32 +HiroyukiS; got it 14:29:37 +Kendall_Clark 14:29:57 +??P28 14:30:02 Zakim, ??P28 is DaveB 14:30:02 +DaveB; got it 14:30:13 EliasT has joined #dawg 14:31:17 ah, i just came back from JPL in LA -- got excellent tourage of vehicle assembly areas, robotics, etc. 14:31:20 very cool 14:31:29 +DanC 14:31:52 That's excellent, kendall 14:32:00 Zakim, take up item 1 14:32:00 agendum 1. "Convene, take roll, review records and agenda http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-dawg/2005JulSep/0120.html" taken up [from DanC] 14:32:18 we gave a 3 day semweb workshop for nasa/jplers... was very productive 14:32:30 +EricP 14:32:50 -EricP 14:32:54 +[IBMCambridge.a] 14:33:05 Zakim, IBMCambridge.a is EliasT 14:33:05 +EliasT; got it 14:33:43 Zakim, list attendees 14:33:43 As of this point the attendees have been AndyS, [IBMCambridge], Jeen_Broekstra, HowardK, HiroyukiS, Kendall_Clark, DaveB, DanC, EricP, EliasT 14:33:48 DaveB scribe 14:33:57 zakim, [IBMCambridge] is temporarily LeeF 14:33:57 +LeeF; got it 14:34:17 note EricP is not actually here (yet) 14:34:19 Zakim, who is on the phone? 14:34:19 On the phone I see AndyS, LeeF, Jeen_Broekstra, HowardK, HiroyukiS, Kendall_Clark, DaveB, DanC, EliasT 14:34:39 Scribe: DaveB 14:34:57 -> http://www.w3.org/2005/07/19-dawg-minutes.html 19 July minutes 14:35:06 zakim, mute me 14:35:06 Kendall_Clark should now be muted 14:35:09 accepted miknutes 14:35:11 +Kevin 14:35:23 +Jos_De_Roo 14:35:29 Zakim, pick a scribe 14:35:29 Not knowing who is chairing or who scribed recently, I propose Kevin 14:35:32 JosD has joined #dawg 14:35:38 Zakim, pick a scribe 14:35:38 Not knowing who is chairing or who scribed recently, I propose AndyS 14:35:57 scribe next week AndyS 14:36:10 zakim, unmute me 14:36:10 Kendall_Clark should no longer be muted 14:36:23 Zakim, next agendum 14:36:23 agendum 2. "ISSUE resultsMimeType" taken up [from DanC] 14:36:45 actions in item1 same status 14:36:58 comment from july 2004 14:37:13 "application/sparql-results+xml" 14:37:22 in rf1/mime.txt 14:37:23 KevinW has joined #DAWG 14:38:10 result format 14:38:21 mime type, why not? 14:40:02 ref to http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-dawg/2005JulSep/0116.html 14:40:18 => http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/DataAccess/rf1/mime.txt 14:40:37 application/sparql-results+xml 14:41:42 is ".srf" better? 14:41:50 AndyS: seems OK, though I found one conflict with ".srq" 14:41:59 +EricP 14:42:04 where "better" == "no conflicts" 14:42:21 I'm a little bit leery of this conflict w/ some sql systems, but it's not a big deal. 14:43:02 q+ to note impact on protocol examples 14:43:29 (I was thinking .sqr ) 14:43:59 +??P30 14:44:15 Zakim, ??P30 is Souri 14:44:15 +Souri; got it 14:44:16 Souri arrivesi 14:44:40 DanC - add it to the result draft and get reviewers 14:45:04 Scribe: EricP 14:45:56 ACTION DaveB: add mime type to results format 14:46:18 A Google search for filetype:sqr gave no returns 14:46:33 ACTION EliasT: review XML Results mime-type registration 14:46:41 ACTION DanC: review XML Results mime-type registration 14:46:44 it's only 134 words... 14:46:53 lines 14:46:59 found http://filext.com/detaillist.php?extdetail=SRQ and should mean "Unprocessed Microsoft Server Request" 14:47:01 4ish 14:47:18 straw poll: who wants to resolve XML Results mime-type today 14:47:26 0 want to dealy 14:47:33 Is this w/ freedom to fiddle the extension string, Dan? 14:47:34 PROPOSED: that http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/DataAccess/rf1/mime.txt addresses issue resultsMimeType, contingent on review by Elias 14:49:06 PROPOSED: that http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/DataAccess/rf1/mime.txt (delegating choice of file extension to the editor) addresses issue resultsMimeType, contingent on review by Elias 14:49:11 thx 14:49:29 OBJECTIONS: 0 14:49:30 so RESOLVED 14:49:33 ack danc 14:49:33 DanC, you wanted to note impact on protocol examples 14:49:38 ABSENTIONS: 0 14:50:04 ACTION KendallC: update protocol spec w.r.t. results mime type 14:50:22 Zakim, next agendum 14:50:22 agendum 3. "SPARQL results namespace name" taken up [from DanC] 14:50:44 How about changing sparqlResults to 14:50:44 http://www.w3.org/2005/sparql-results 14:50:49 cvs 1.45 of rf1 now has mime type section 5 14:51:50 I prefer dash to camel case, but don't care about the month droppage. 14:51:53 DanC: Bjorne: '-' separated namespaces are easier for javascript coders than camel case. 14:52:23 ... ... also '-' separated namespaces are more consistent with other W3C namespaces 14:52:58 7-ish prefer '-' 14:53:09 PROPOSED: to change the namespace name to http://www.w3.org/2005/sparql-results (and update rf1 and rq23) 14:53:20 OBJECTIONS: 0 14:53:25 ABSENTIONS: 0 14:53:28 RESOLVED 14:53:48 ACTION KendallC: Check whether the results namespace is in protocol draft; if so, update. 14:54:18 ACTION AndyS: fix rq23 to reflect new results namespace 14:54:46 ACTION EricP: ask for namespace approval and put a document there 14:54:48 ACTION DaveB: update rf1 with new namespace 14:55:05 resolution is contingent on director's approval 14:55:45 rfc cvs 1.46 now has the new namespace 14:55:49 ^rf1 14:55:50 EliasT, atom [#-]-less namespace is ugly when concatonated 14:56:08 DanC, i know of no intention to use with RDF 14:57:21 (in irc, who prefers http://www.w3.org/2005/sparql-results# ? ) 14:57:38 i prefer # to bare "sparql-results" 14:58:24 who prefers a hash: 3 or 4 14:58:37 PROPOSED: to change the namespace name to http://www.w3.org/2005/sparql-results# (and update rf1 and rq23) 14:58:42 who's prefers none? 0 14:58:44 cheaper to change now than at any other point ever again :> 14:59:08 RESOLVED, JeenB abstaining 14:59:09 ABSTENTIONS: jeen 14:59:18 Zakim, next agendum 14:59:18 agendum 4. "SPARQL results publication" taken up [from DanC] 15:00:05 DanC, DaveB has integrated ordering and limits 15:00:20 LeeF, i *think* all outstanding points have been addressed 15:01:11 DanC, I imagine a test case with an attribute from a randing namespace 15:02:10 DaveB, text says "this element here, and there are these attribtutes there" but the schemas could be normative (striking the caveat "these are informative " sentence) 15:02:54 "Normativeness of the XML schemas. Pick one?" 15:03:10 (I'm planning to use the RelaxNG one in my web framework to validate XML stored in a db...FWIW) 15:03:19 (But tht 15:03:29 erp,... (That's only a plan right now, not yet coded.0 15:04:04 similarly, we have as of yet uncoded plans that will likely use the WSDL :) 15:04:48 err, XML schema 15:04:53 silly me 15:05:18 DanC, who wants to make the XSD schema normative? 15:05:26 around 6 15:05:30 I think XSD is a bad idea, but that's a different point. :> 15:05:49 ditto 15:06:20 (that is, i preferr RNG for most jobs) 15:06:29 explicit better than implicit. :> 15:06:32 PROPOSED: to note that the .xsd is derived from the .rng and make them both normative 15:06:56 PROPOSED: to note that the .xsd is derived from the .rng (and therefore, as far as we know, they mean the same thing) and make them both normative 15:07:43 daveb: did you get my original email posted to the group? 15:07:46 so RESOLVED 15:08:14 DanC, is there a term for "SPARQL Results Format document"? 15:08:42 "serialized result set"? 15:08:42 DaveB: could add to section 1 or 2 15:09:20 "sparql results document" 15:09:36 ACTION DaveB: to choose a term and define it 15:09:51 I'm happy following Dave's lead here. 15:10:31 ACTION KendallC: to use Dave's name for a results set doc in the protocol draft... 15:10:42 DanC, i can now test an instance with a schema validator 15:10:54 DanC: i can now test an instance with a schema validator 15:11:04 Zakim, who's on the phone? 15:11:04 On the phone I see AndyS, LeeF, Jeen_Broekstra, HowardK, HiroyukiS, Kendall_Clark, DaveB, DanC, EliasT, Kevin, Jos_De_Roo, EricP, Souri 15:11:35 DanC: yes or no, take the XML Results Format + actioned cahnges to last call 15:11:53 ... LC to end at the same time as SPARQL Query 15:12:16 all are happy with it 15:12:42 SteveH has joined #dawg 15:12:48 PROPOSED: to take v1.46 + edits per actions today (plus SOTD) to last call. 15:14:17 RESOLVED. Action EricP 15:14:35 critical path people are: Dave, DanC, EliasT, EricP 15:14:36 ACTION ericP: publish rf1 15:14:51 Zakim, next agendum 15:14:51 agendum 5. "Experience with SPARQL/P/SOAP/Axis Seaborne" taken up [from DanC] 15:16:38 kendall: worried about optimizing for one particular tool (Axis) 15:16:59 AndyS: have eliminated all Axis-isms 15:17:24 ACTION KendallC: add POST binding to protocol doc 15:17:31 kendall: post binding is number one on my protocol doc list 15:18:32 ("'patch' is invoved making the xsd from relaxng..."? hmm.) 15:19:03 ACTION KendallC: consider flattening rdf-dataset a la http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-dawg/2005JulSep/0087.html 15:19:12 kendall: I added rdf-dataset only to mirror the prose 15:19:34 sorry, bad connection 15:19:54 re: xsd/relaxng patch. Does it matter if both are independently normative? 15:20:04 Zakim, next agendum 15:20:04 agendum 6. "SPARQL QL last call comments" taken up [from DanC] 15:20:22 AndyS: Sorry to have not ACK'd publicly on that message. It's useful, I just lost track of it. 15:20:41 ACTION: DanC to investigate having CVS commits send to the WG list [continues] 15:20:45 Kendall - no problem 15:21:01 DanC: I asked sysreq to do it. they said "done". i haven't seen it work 15:21:35 AndyS: yr point 2/ is also on my TODO list already, so ACK that. I'll think about 3/ & 4/ 15:21:59 DanC: we now have 4 open issues (from the comments) 15:22:12 (My only comment about 5/ is that I wish we had xml serialization of queries so we could POST *that*, but -shrug-) 15:22:52 Err - that's different - I'm asking for a POST HTML form 15:22:58 ... editorial comments included ref to ABNF 15:23:38 ACTION: DaveB respond to "sparqlResults namespace" comment http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-dawg-comments/2005Jul/0039.html , after rq23 is updated 15:24:21 DanC: we owe Bjourn an "are you happy?" response 15:24:53 AndyS: well, yes, gotcha. We have to POST something, and the only thing we can post now, since it's the only thing we have predefined, is application/x-www-form-urlencoded. 15:25:15 (I'm noodling on distinguishing "are you happy?" responses)\ 15:25:54 [CLOSE?] ? 15:26:14 I just want an HTML forms interface! 15:26:55 DanC: WG members are welcome to act on any comment 15:27:03 ... by proposing text to the editor via the WG 15:27:06 ... some prefix will indicate a request to close 15:27:36 Zakim, next agendum 15:27:36 agendum 7. "BASE IRI resolution" taken up [from DanC] 15:27:40 i don't want one. i guess i was suggesting that if we define a way to post stuff, people can do that from HTML forms or from some kind of automated client. i care about the latter, you care about the former. i don't see a problem? 15:28:02 ... [CLOSED] indicates an ack to an "are you satisfied" ack 15:28:47 Quite hard to POST XML from HTML forms :-) without javascript. 15:29:13 So, application/x-www-form-urlencoded.is fine then, right, AndyS? 15:29:26 [DanC summarizes http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-dawg/2005JulSep/0096] 15:29:32 I don't think the two of you are disagreeing. 15:29:47 i was explicitly agreeing, actually. i guess not explicit enough. 15:29:51 LeeF : yes 15:30:35 Thought you were wanting XML in plain HTTP. 15:31:01 ACTION EricP: add test case in 0096 to test cases 15:31:23 nope. (well, yes, i said i do want that, but then I said application/x-www-form-urlencoded was good enough for now. :>) 15:32:33 AndyS: I use java.net.uri . i don't think it does normalization. 15:32:49 zakim, mute me 15:32:49 Kendall_Clark should now be muted 15:33:10 PROPOSED: to add clarify SPARQL QL spec about base IRI normalization and add tests as per http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-dawg/2005JulSep/0096.html 15:33:23 action -16 15:33:28 ACTION EricP: add test case in 0096 to tests 15:33:46 zakim, unmute me 15:33:46 Kendall_Clark should no longer be muted 15:33:48 RESOLVED 15:34:31 ACTION ericP: add "don't normalize" to rq23 (perhaps supplied in 0096) 15:35:06 ACTION ericP: send [SATISFIED?] message to Bjourne 15:35:14 http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-dawg-comments/2005Jul/0042.html Bjoern Hoehrmann 15:35:32 ironic from someone so careful about strings :> 15:35:55 action -17 15:36:24 ACTION EricP: add test in 0096 to rq23 tests. label "approved" and ref this meeting record. 15:36:25 Zakim, next agendum 15:36:25 agendum 8. "Issue queryMimeType, "External Storage of Queries"" taken up [from DanC] 15:36:59 http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/DataAccess/rq23/mime.txt 15:37:14 "application/sparql" 15:37:50 My only concern here is making it possible in the future to have an XML serialization of SPARQL queries. Err, I mean, not making it not possible. 15:38:00 text/ ? 15:38:36 mime.txt,v 1.2 2005/07/25 15:41:27 15:38:45 UTF-8 vs UTF-16? 15:39:05 no, not text/ 15:39:28 then you *do* get into charset issues 15:39:56 (Hmm, I guess my concern is moot, thinking about it some more.) 15:40:42 I'd prefer "application/sparql-query" to "application/sparql", I think. More specific, more clear. 15:40:54 Also symmetric with "sparql-results" 15:41:07 +1 kendall's suggestion 15:42:40 +1 as well 15:42:49 +1 15:44:45 file extension? .sq? 15:45:02 as opposed to ".rq" 15:45:58 -> http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/DataAccess/rq23/mime.txt application/sparql-query mime-type registration 15:46:06 ACTION KendallC: to add security considerations section to proto draft, under 4. Policy... 15:46:09 mime.txt updated, @@'s added 15:47:00 Is ".rq" the conventional extension for RDQL queries? 15:47:13 rq = "RDF query" presumably? 15:47:24 ACTION ericP: update rq23 to include the text of rq23/mime.txt reflect security concearns 15:47:26 We use that in the test suite 15:47:34 cool; just wondering 15:47:37 yes all our tests are .rq 15:47:44 Zakim, next agendum 15:47:44 agendum 9. "issue valueTesting: optional and error cases" taken up [from DanC] 15:47:51 It's not in obvious use elsewhere (strangely) 15:48:13 i find it a tiny bit confusing, but not a big deal. 15:48:29 "SPARQL defines a set of functions & operations (sections 11.1 and 11.2) that all implementations must provide." 15:49:04 +1 to DanC's point 15:49:30 though I'd slice up the core differently, I think. I don't want to be required to implement all those Fs&Os to be a sparql processor. Am I the only one? 15:49:34 DanC: as I wrote earlier, I prefer not to refer to "implementations" at all in the QL spec; I prefer to specify languages, e.g. Core Sparql and extended sparql 15:50:27 11.2.4 Extensible Value Testing 15:51:00 kendall: I don't want to have to implement all (for instance, dates) 15:51:11 I *may* just be pointlessly whining here! 15:51:11 ... of the functions and operators 15:52:04 ... i'd like the core to be smaller 15:53:48 AndyS: if dates are not core, < might not work on them 15:55:06 Integers are harder than dates! 15:55:16 but i have clients for integers :> 15:55:21 serious andy? 15:55:24 Kendall: dates and strings probably aren't that much work. don't want to make a big deal of it. 15:56:03 as a data point: we recently received a code contribution in Sesame for supporting dates. it took the coder about a week to implement (that is, including getting familiar with the sesame code base). 15:56:07 Type promotion needs to be done. 1.5 > 2^^xsd:byte 15:56:28 FILTER func:even(?id) 15:57:17 11.2.4 Extensible Value Testing 15:57:18 I used the Xerces code (via Dave Reynolds wrappers) for date comparision, If you have a library, its easy, if not, it is long. 15:57:29 right 15:57:58 (I was picky and wanted timezone to be preserved - that was my value add - Xerces turns all to Z) 15:58:03 or if you have a library and there is semantic mismatch, but -shrug- 15:59:38 bug: (section 11.3) 15:59:50 " there is an extension mechanism (section 11.3)" 16:00:17 (I recommend you use XSLT to make/check your xrefs) 16:01:48 it's pretty much 90 minutes, FYI 16:02:14 ACTION EricP/Andy: revise rq23 to remove reference to implementations/engines (e.g. 3.3 Value Constraints – Definition ) 16:02:36 the rf1 abstract also uses impl 16:02:52 uhoh, I gotta go rsn 16:03:01 agenda? 16:03:23 Zakim, close this agendum 16:03:23 agendum 9 closed 16:03:24 I see 1 item remaining on the agenda: 16:03:25 10. issue badIRIRef [from DanC] 16:03:30 ADJOURN. 16:03:30 thx 16:03:31 -Souri 16:03:38 -DaveB 16:03:46 -Kendall_Clark 16:03:48 -LeeF 16:03:50 -Kevin 16:03:56 -HiroyukiS 16:04:32 -EliasT 16:05:50 -Jeen_Broekstra 16:07:22 DaveB has joined #dawg 16:08:38 -Jos_De_Roo 16:09:05 -HowardK 16:09:08 afs has joined #dawg 16:09:08 AndyS has joined #dawg 16:13:39 seems .srx isn't used according to filext.com 16:14:12 or file-ext.com 16:14:50 -AndyS 16:17:55 (looking at http://www.faqs.org/rfcs/rfc2234.html ) 16:20:03 -EricP 16:20:04 -DanC 16:20:05 SW_DAWG()10:30AM has ended 16:20:06 Attendees were AndyS, Jeen_Broekstra, HowardK, HiroyukiS, Kendall_Clark, DaveB, DanC, EricP, EliasT, LeeF, Kevin, Jos_De_Roo, Souri 16:37:02 ericP has joined #dawg 17:36:58 EliasT has left #dawg 18:18:04 Zakim has left #dawg 18:52:31 DaveB has joined #dawg