14:28:41 RRSAgent has joined #dawg 14:28:41 logging to http://www.w3.org/2005/10/04-dawg-irc 14:29:14 RRSAgent, stop 14:30:35 +??P21 14:30:38 zakim, ??P21 is AndyS 14:30:38 +AndyS; got it 14:30:42 +DanC 14:31:24 DanC has changed the topic to: RDF Data Access http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/DataAccess/ 4 Oct. scribe: AndyS 14:31:30 Zakim, take up item 1 14:31:30 agendum 1. "Convene, take roll, review records and agenda" taken up [from DanC] 14:31:37 Meeting: RDF Data Access Weekly 14:31:41 Scribe: AndyS 14:31:43 Chair: DanC 14:32:07 JanneS has joined #dawg 14:32:48 Regrets: SteveH, LeeF, DaveB, JosD 14:32:53 Regrets: SteveH, LeeF, DaveB, JosD, SouriD 14:32:58 +[IPcaller] 14:33:13 Enrico and myself are dialing right now 14:33:18 Zakim, IPcaller is JanneS 14:33:18 +JanneS; got it 14:33:18 Zakim, IPcaller is JanneS 14:33:19 sorry, JanneS, I do not recognize a party named 'IPcaller' 14:33:39 +Enrico_Franconi 14:34:25 Regrets: SteveH, LeeF, DaveB, JosD, SouriD, PatH 14:34:44 Regrets: EricP 14:35:00 But PatH is lurking on IRC. 14:35:12 hi 14:35:15 Regrets: Kendall 14:35:25 Regrets: SteveH, LeeF, DaveB, JosD, SouriD, PatH, KendallC 14:36:17 Zakim, who's talking? 14:36:28 DanC, listening for 10 seconds I heard sound from the following: JanneS (79%), Enrico_Franconi (9%), DanC (74%) 14:36:36 Zakim, mute JanneS 14:36:36 JanneS should now be muted 14:36:59 +[UMD] 14:37:21 Zakim, who's on the phone? 14:37:21 On the phone I see AndyS, DanC, JanneS (muted), Enrico_Franconi, [UMD] 14:37:23 bijan has joined #dawg 14:37:29 zakim, UMD has Bijan 14:37:29 +Bijan; got it 14:37:30 Regrets: SteveH, LeeF, DaveB, JosD, SouriD, PatH, KendallC, EricP 14:38:25 I've got headset on now - echo should have gone. 14:38:28 Zakim, unmute JanneS 14:38:28 JanneS should no longer be muted 14:38:48 Zakim, who's here? 14:38:48 On the phone I see AndyS, DanC, JanneS, Enrico_Franconi, [UMD] 14:38:49 [UMD] has Bijan 14:38:51 On IRC I see bijan, JanneS, RRSAgent, Zakim, franconi, SerT, patH, AndyS, afs, ericP, DanC 14:38:59 Agenda: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-dawg/2005OctDec/att-0001/_ag4Oct.html 14:39:12 agenda + DAWG schedule 14:40:26 agenda order = 1, 6, 12 14:40:34 agenda order=1, 6, 12 14:40:39 Zakim, agenda order=1, 6, 12 14:40:39 I don't understand 'agenda order=1, 6, 12', DanC 14:40:43 Zakim, agenda order is 1, 6, 12 14:40:43 ok, DanC 14:41:14 scribe for Oct 11? 14:41:39 Janne offers for 18 Oct 14:41:50 ACTION: EricP to arrange for 200 response from http://www.w3.org/2005/08/sparql-protocol-query [DONE] 14:41:58 ACTION: KC to revert query-request from xs:all back to xs:seq and note this is due to limiations of XML Schema. [DONE] 14:42:13 next meeting is tentatively scheduled for 11 Oct, contingent on recruiting a scribe 14:42:21 Zakim, next agendum 14:42:21 agendum 6. "issues#rdfSemantics, issues#owlDisjunction" taken up [from DanC] 14:43:04 +EliasT 14:43:22 From PatH summary email 14:44:24 .. Sergio has summary of change areas 14:44:57 EliasT has joined #dawg 14:45:16 Zakim, who's on the phone 14:45:16 I don't understand 'who's on the phone', EliasT 14:45:22 Zakim, who's on the phone? 14:45:22 On the phone I see AndyS, DanC, JanneS, Enrico_Franconi, [UMD], EliasT 14:45:23 [UMD] has Bijan 14:45:55 Enrico: entailment 1/ def of pattern solution : no Bnodes 14:46:07 -> http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/DataAccess/rq23/#PatternSolutions 2.4 Pattern Solutions 14:46:11 .. 2/ patten matching include entailment 14:46:22 DanC: http://www.mindswap.org/~bparsia/rdfssemsparql.txt 14:46:30 (not perm) 14:46:32 er. 14:46:33 Add skolemised and unskolemisation 14:46:34 DanC, http://www.mindswap.org/~bparsia/rdfssemsparql.txt 14:46:41 Zakim, mute me 14:46:41 EliasT should now be muted 14:47:12 Enrico: skolemization found not to work 14:47:21 er... my browser doesn't wrap rdfssemsparql.txt very well 14:47:22 (Proof?) 14:47:37 skolemization does work 14:47:46 optional in UNION and SELECT for minimization 14:47:54 It's just text.../me tried ot move fast 14:49:02 No bnodes in data =>none in results 14:49:55 if I follow that, I disagree. Bnode in answer can be bound to a query var in query. 14:49:56 Syntactic bnodes in dataset => skolemize to constants => remember process => entail => deskolemize with mapping 14:50:22 (Don't understand why Pat's approach was found wrong) 14:50:31 Whoops, sorry, withdraw previous comment. 14:51:36 Pat doesnt follow why Pat is wrong, either. 14:51:49 q+ to ask whether this mapping undone after base pattern or after query 14:53:01 Enrico: may be a problem with revealing bnodes labels 14:53:19 .. use case (Ron's ?- ed) not met in this case 14:53:22 DanC, http://www.mindswap.org/~bparsia/rdfssemsparql.html 14:53:39 I don't think you are wrong. 14:53:41 pat 14:56:15 .. preservation of told bnodes 14:56:39 .. on abstract syntax, not lean graph 14:58:07 q+ to ask about named graphs 14:58:23 +SteveH 14:58:37 Bijan: lean store = abstract syntax+entailment queries 14:59:26 SteveH has joined #dawg 14:59:33 How to specify the query mode: protocol, query flags, (per graph? per base pattern?) 15:00:03 Per endpoint? Or on a per request basis (server can reject 15:00:32 No proposal to change the QL at the moment 15:00:59 zakim, mute me 15:00:59 SteveH should now be muted 15:01:01 Default is per service and include in description (scribe checking) 15:01:46 New "entailment" -> "abstract syntax", "told bnode" 15:02:24 It is impossible to follow this from the IRC record. Just a remark. 15:02:48 DanC: suggest: say "redundant answers are OK" 15:03:40 +1 15:04:10 Enrico: only told bNode redundance ? 15:05:31 Suggest not qualifying this, since removing redundacy is potentially high cost for service agent, independent of entailment issues. 15:07:41 DanC: concern about introducing a new entailment 15:08:01 .. alt: one kind of service - may get redundancies 15:08:33 Bijan: service advertises abilities (a property of the service - single valued) 15:09:41 (My server does it based on graph queried - not just service) 15:10:51 DanC: Tension between abs syntax and servers that wish to forget it 15:11:03 Bijan: has examples of both 15:11:18 DanC: clients loose 15:11:39 May be possible to have a server that only has lean graphs 15:12:12 (Does cwm lean graphs?) 15:13:03 (yes) 15:13:11 (at least in some cases, I gather) 15:13:32 When? During log:semantics? 15:13:35 I'm not sure 15:14:06 DanC: suppose we just say: clients lose; we don't require servers to support querying abstract syntax 15:14:14 BUt imagine a RSS-feed type query service, required to be lean might be impossibly expensive and not important in use. 15:14:25 DanC, is an aspect or presumption of your position that we shouldn't specify answers for sparql against graphs under, e.g., rdfs semantics? 15:14:57 quite. I'm sticking to the idea that rdfs semantics is done by closure before query 15:15:02 I'd be happy with that. 15:15:22 Oh. We're at completely different points 15:16:02 Guys, consider that the RDFS case can be implemented in various ways even if spec describes result in terms of closure or in terms of inference. 15:16:24 Yes, I just want it specified 15:16:35 And in the protocol I want us to identify names for these modes (extensible) 15:16:40 Etc. 15:17:10 But there are theorems showing rdfs-entail = simple-entail from rdfs closure. SO why does it matter which way we describe it? 15:17:36 because there is no way to characterise the told-bonode semantics 15:17:41 It doesn't, expect insofar as it prevents extensibily to owl 15:17:53 yes 15:18:09 I calim it can be done in terms of scope. Thqats orthogonal issue to the rdf/rdfs/owl?/entailment issue. 15:18:52 Bijan, we should be honest about not providing owl entailment. We don't, so lets not pretend otherwise. 15:19:19 Let's not start again ont that :-) 15:19:20 stepping back, this telcon has already been valuable to me; I think i understand Enrico's proposal much more clearly than I did before. 15:20:03 +1 15:22:37 patH, yes, but I think there is a clear path forward and I would like it to be a simple extension 15:22:44 Rather than a rewrite of some part of the spec 15:23:56 Test harness 15:24:00 Bijan, OK, but we will need to wrap this around with warnings about not expecting too much, etc.. And there is an orthogonal concern, that other, different, generalizations will be blocked in order to keep the entailments pure. 15:24:06 What effect does this have on the tests? 15:24:33 Bijan: impls not doing entailment 15:24:41 (Andy -> no - 3Store) 15:24:52 Bijan, I see this already in the concern for a semantic story for told bnodes. THere are clear practical use cases for this. 15:26:38 Yes, but I'm hearing that the test cases might be indifferent to told bnode redundancy! 15:27:03 [] rdf:type rs:ResultSet ; 15:27:03 rs:resultVariable "x" ; 15:27:03 rs:solution [ rs:binding [ rs:value 1 ; 15:27:03 rs:variable "x" 15:27:03 ] 15:27:04 ] . 15:28:01 we have a count for queryies with ORDER BY 15:28:22 (I'm muted, in a noisy room) 15:29:13 So logical equiv data graphs lead to logical equiv result sets 15:29:49 Err - no - because result set bnodes aren't redundant. 15:30:32 Wait, we have to specify what semantics we are applying to the result sets. 15:30:55 It's "logical equivance" - which may not be enough 15:30:58 :-(# 15:31:23 Is that defined anywhere for result sets? 15:31:42 yes, if you squint... 15:31:49 Tests README 15:31:59 -EliasT 15:32:51 patH: the semantics we gave in our document (conjunctive existential) would be the right one, I guess 15:32:58 thanks for letting me catch up via just listening you today - have to go now for tonight, bye 15:33:09 -JanneS 15:33:12 JanneS has left #dawg 15:33:28 Franconi, can you send the URI for that doc? 15:36:08 so http://www.mindswap.org/~bparsia/rdfssemsparql.html is progress on ACTION: Enrico to take a pass through the editor's draft, listing what will change with the new semantics understanding ... 15:36:35 it's done to my satisfaction... some discussion as to whether it's done to the satisfaction of the meeting [not to mention whether we're quorate to discharge actions anyway] 15:36:41 * Ditch the whole GRAPH/NAMED thing (or push it in soma appendix). 15:37:05 http://www.w3.org/mid/a80c7960501c216dc201b3552d81ab03@inf.unibz.it 15:37:10 AndyS confused by that proposal - can it be in the algebra? 15:37:13 Ta. 15:37:57 ACTION Bijan: estimate impact of "abstract syntax entilemnt" etc. on WG test harness 15:38:45 Bijan: ... algebra ...? 15:39:05 AndyS: GRAPH is just the same algebra with 4-tuples rather than 3-tuples 15:39:39 Enrico: yes, at that level, it's just another column in the results[?], but we don't have a semantics at the RDF level [er... he said it better] 15:40:45 I know this is considered fighting words, but this sounds to me like the semantics police blocking a useful mechanism. 15:41:18 DanC: yes, months ago, [in Helsinki] I argued against SOURCE/GRAPH on the grounds that we don't really understand it formally... but now the users expect it 15:41:34 And, more to the point, they are using it. 15:41:55 Bijan: so... can we put GRAPH in an appendix, or put a warning around it or something? 15:42:07 DanC: yes, I think that's a good idea... 15:42:09 Proposal to add text to warn there are no formal semantics for GRAPH yet (or in time for rc) 15:42:11 Proposal to add text to warn there are no formal semantics for GRAPH yet (or in time for rec) 15:42:13 And, BTW, it does have a (trivial) clear semantics. 15:42:35 Even though it might not be in a W3C spec yet :-) 15:42:52 Idea: formalise during CR period 15:42:54 ... some discussion of saying that GRAPH is at risk during CR, with a CR exit criterion that we formalize it. 15:43:14 patH: what are we blocking exactly? My attitude is to formaise whatever users do. So, if I forgot something, let me understand what. 15:43:26 we already did, in the named graph paper. BUt Id wlecome discusion/criticism. 15:44:01 franconi, maybe I was reading too mcuh intot he enigmatic IRC record. The red flag was the calim that named graphs have no semantics. 15:44:14 Many users want GROUP. 15:45:16 I thought Pat had at least a first cut on its formalization - Enrico - do you have comments on that (later? email?) 15:45:45 Lets do it by email, it may take time. Certainly details :-) 15:45:48 Aha, I don't claim that they can not have semantics, I only claim that at the current stage of SPARQL it may take some (long) time to have it in a complete form. So, it is a matter of timing, I guess 15:46:19 OK, then Im more optimisitc. Lets talk about this by email. 15:46:34 sure 15:46:37 Dan -- Schedule discussion 15:46:49 CR ==> ~Oct 37th 15:46:57 XQuery - got comments 15:47:01 BTW, we worked iit out for the common logic propposal in some detail. I'll send you the URI. 15:47:18 q+ to ask about XSD decimals 15:47:38 SWBP review - some comments 15:47:39 Pat has to leave, his trun to present the next paper :-) 15:47:46 Thx Pat 15:47:52 ta, pat 15:47:57 ta, pat's ghost 15:51:34 (I would need a clearer explaination of the issue re XQuery after all this time) 15:52:31 Ha! 15:52:47 The chair is committed to get to CR. 15:56:42 10AndyS: 01CR ==> ~Oct 37th 15:57:15 Zakim, take up item schedule 15:57:15 agendum 12. "DAWG schedule" taken up [from DanC] 16:05:26 -SteveH 16:06:53 ADJOURN. 16:06:58 -Enrico_Franconi 16:07:01 -[UMD] 16:09:28 -DanC 16:09:30 -AndyS 16:09:31 SW_DAWG()10:30AM has ended 16:09:32 Attendees were AndyS, DanC, JanneS, Enrico_Franconi, Bijan, EliasT, SteveH 16:09:51 SteveH has joined #dawg 16:12:55 RRSAgent, make logs world-access 16:31:25 rrsagent, please leave 16:31:25 I see 3 open action items saved in http://www.w3.org/2005/10/04-dawg-actions.rdf : 16:31:25 ACTION: EricP to arrange for 200 response from http://www.w3.org/2005/08/sparql-protocol-query [DONE] [1] 16:31:25 recorded in http://www.w3.org/2005/10/04-dawg-irc#T14-41-50 16:31:25 ACTION: KC to revert query-request from xs:all back to xs:seq and note this is due to limiations of XML Schema. [DONE] [2] 16:31:25 recorded in http://www.w3.org/2005/10/04-dawg-irc#T14-41-58 16:31:25 ACTION: Bijan to estimate impact of "abstract syntax entilemnt" etc. on WG test harness [3] 16:31:25 recorded in http://www.w3.org/2005/10/04-dawg-irc#T15-37-57