IRC log of dawg on 2005-10-18

Timestamps are in UTC.

14:25:07 [RRSAgent]

RRSAgent has joined #dawg

14:25:07 [RRSAgent]

logging to http://www.w3.org/2005/10/18-dawg-irc

14:25:23 [DanC]

no problem, HiroyukiS. Nice to see you again;

14:27:19 [Zakim]

SW_DAWG()10:30AM has now started

14:27:21 [Zakim]

+??P20

14:27:25 [AndyS]

zakim, ??P20 is AndyS

14:27:25 [Zakim]

+AndyS; got it

14:27:39 [kendall]

kendall has joined #dawg

14:27:51 [Zakim]

+Lee_Feigenbaum

14:27:53 [Zakim]

-Lee_Feigenbaum

14:27:54 [Zakim]

+Lee_Feigenbaum

14:28:04 [LeeF]

zakim, Lee_Feigenbaum is LeeF

14:28:04 [Zakim]

+LeeF; got it

14:28:10 [Zakim]

+??P22

14:28:23 [HiroyukiS]

Zakim, ??P22 is HiroyukiS

14:28:23 [Zakim]

+HiroyukiS; got it

14:28:26 [LeeF]

zakim, mute me please

14:28:26 [Zakim]

LeeF should now be muted

14:28:47 [Zakim]

+??P24

14:29:12 [Zakim]

+PatH

14:29:20 [Zakim]

+DanC

14:29:24 [Zakim]

+Leslie

14:29:28 [Zakim]

+Kendall_Clark

14:29:35 [Zakim]

-??P24

14:29:58 [JanneS]

JanneS has joined #dawg

14:30:00 [kendall]

he's e'steamed all the time! :>

14:30:02 [DanC]

Zakim, take up item 1

14:30:02 [Zakim]

agendum 1. "Convene, take roll, review records and agenda" taken up [from DanC]

14:30:09 [DanC]

agenda: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-dawg/2005OctDec/att-0074/_ag18Oct.html

14:30:14 [DanC]

Zakim, who's on the phone?

14:30:14 [Zakim]

On the phone I see AndyS, LeeF (muted), HiroyukiS, PatH, DanC, Leslie, Kendall_Clark

14:30:34 [SteveH]

hum Leslie might be me, any easy way to check?

14:30:36 [Zakim]

+??P24

14:30:49 [DanC]

Zakim, mute Leslie temporarily

14:30:49 [Zakim]

Leslie should now be muted

14:30:50 [kendall]

Leslie, a fine, if eccentric British name. :>

14:30:52 [JanneS]

I have another call to make - I'll join you by phone in 5-10 mins.

14:31:02 [SteveH]

Zakim, Leslie is SteveH

14:31:02 [Zakim]

+SteveH; got it

14:31:04 [Zakim]

SteveH should now be unmuted again

14:31:13 [Zakim]

+Bert

14:31:25 [JanneS]

I promised two weeks ago I would scribe today - I can do so once I join in.

14:31:37 [ericP]

zakim, Bert is really ericP

14:31:37 [Zakim]

+ericP; got it

14:31:38 [Zakim]

+Bijan_Parsia

14:31:50 [AndyS]

Perfectly reasonable British name. Esp N of the border.

14:31:56 [Yoshio]

Yoshio has joined #dawg

14:32:07 [kendall]

eccentric is always reasonable ;>

14:32:10 [jeen]

zakim, P24 is jeen

14:32:10 [Zakim]

sorry, jeen, I do not recognize a party named 'P24'

14:32:12 [AndyS]

For both M and F.

14:32:14 [Zakim]

+Yoshio

14:32:25 [DanC]

DanC has changed the topic to: RDF Data Access 18 Oct. scribe: JanneS http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/DataAccess/

14:32:30 [jeen]

zakim, ??P24 is jeen

14:32:30 [Zakim]

+jeen; got it

14:32:33 [ericP]

JanneS, happy to let you scribe

14:32:45 [DanC]

Zakim, who's on the phone?

14:32:45 [Zakim]

On the phone I see AndyS, LeeF (muted), HiroyukiS, PatH, DanC, SteveH, Kendall_Clark, jeen, ericP, Bijan_Parsia, Yoshio

14:33:02 [ericP]

Meeting: DAWG

14:33:09 [kendall]

it's an ideological construct, of course. one i'm not responsible for. :>

14:33:09 [Zakim]

+[IPcaller]

14:33:10 [ericP]

Chair: DanC

14:33:24 [DaveB]

hi, that IPcaller is me

14:33:34 [ericP]

Scribe: JanneS

14:33:59 [JanneS]

Eric, please start without me - I'll join u in 5 mins

14:34:12 [ericP]

JanneS, can yuo sribe next week?

14:34:22 [LeeF]

I'll be right back on a different phone, this one is decidedly unhappy.

14:34:24 [JanneS]

nope, I'll be in a plane

14:34:27 [DanC]

ACTION: EricP to send [OK?] message to Bjoern [DONE]

14:34:28 [ericP]

Scribe: EricP

14:34:41 [Zakim]

-LeeF

14:34:41 [DanC]

ACTION: EricP to respond to "ORDER with IRIs" comment [DONE]

14:34:41 [DaveB]

Zakim, +[IPcaller] is DaveB

14:34:43 [Zakim]

sorry, DaveB, I do not recognize a party named '+[IPcaller]'

14:34:46 [Zakim]

+ +1.617.566.aaaa

14:34:52 [ericP]

action -1

14:34:53 [LeeF]

zakim, +1.617.566.aaaa is LeeF

14:34:53 [Zakim]

+LeeF; got it

14:34:56 [ericP]

action -2

14:35:20 [EliasT]

EliasT has joined #dawg

14:35:28 [DanC]

agenda + SPARQL QL next publication

14:35:37 [DanC]

agenda + SPARQL Results format comments

14:35:49 [Zakim]

+Elias

14:36:04 [kendall]

talk about unforeseen (-seeable?) spec interactions!

14:36:11 [EliasT]

how do I tell Zakim that Elias is EliasT?

14:36:22 [EliasT]

Zakim, Elias is EliasT

14:36:22 [Zakim]

+EliasT; got it

14:36:24 [DanC]

Zakim, next item

14:36:24 [Zakim]

agendum 2. "toward Note on using SPARQL with WSDL 1.1" taken up [from DanC]

14:36:42 [ericP]

ACTION: DaveB to to propose source test to approve [CONTINUED]

14:36:49 [kendall]

who's the hands of stone typist? really loud.

14:36:52 [EliasT]

Zakim, mute me

14:36:52 [Zakim]

EliasT should now be muted

14:36:53 [ericP]

ACTION: DanC to follow up re optional test based on op:dateTime triple [CONTINUED]

14:37:02 [ericP]

ACTION: DanC to notify www-rdf-comments about difference between RDF URI refs and IRIs, e.g. spaces [CONTINUED]

14:37:25 [franconi]

franconi has joined #dawg

14:37:35 [ericP]

ACTION: Lee to elaborate on how to use this WSDL 1.1 stuff with tools [DONE]

14:37:39 [ericP]

action -6

14:37:53 [franconi]

Hi all, we can not participate on the phone today :-(

14:37:54 [kendall]

yep

14:38:00 [ericP]

ACTION: KC, EricP to review WSDL 1.1 sparql protocol publication candidate, once a candidate pointer is mailed to the WG [DONE]

14:38:05 [ericP]

action -7

14:38:06 [DanC]

hi, franconi

14:38:14 [DanC]

Zakim, next item

14:38:14 [Zakim]

agendum 3. "protocol testing update" taken up [from DanC]

14:38:21 [EliasT]

Zakim, unmute me

14:38:21 [Zakim]

EliasT should no longer be muted

14:38:22 [kendall]

re: SOTD being tricky for the Protocol WSDL 1.1 Note

14:38:36 [Zakim]

+[IPcaller.a]

14:38:37 [ericP]

ACTION DanC: publish WSDL 1.1 sparql protocol note, contingent on thumbs-up from KC, EricP, Lee/Elias [CONTINUED]

14:38:43 [JanneS]

Zakim, IPcaller.a is JanneS

14:38:43 [Zakim]

+JanneS; got it

14:39:26 [EliasT]

http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-dawg/2005OctDec/0063.html

14:39:30 [DanC]

Zakim, who's on the phone?

14:39:30 [Zakim]

On the phone I see AndyS, HiroyukiS, PatH, DanC, SteveH, Kendall_Clark, jeen, ericP, Bijan_Parsia, Yoshio, [IPcaller], LeeF, EliasT, JanneS

14:41:06 [AndyS]

The page at DataAccess/proto-tests/ does not mention protocol

14:41:17 [ericP]

ACTION: Jeen try to reproduces EliasT's protocol testing results

14:41:19 [patH]

I have to drop out for about 4 minutes, will leave my phone muted.

14:41:26 [DanC]

roger, patH

14:41:31 [JanneS]

EricP, I'm ready to scribe now

14:41:37 [JanneS]

..if u want

14:42:32 [ericP]

zakim, IPcaller is DaveB

14:42:32 [Zakim]

+DaveB; got it

14:42:32 [AndyS]

01-Sep-2005 22:08

14:42:34 [JanneS]

sign me up for scribing 2 weeks again - i'll by flying next week

14:42:58 [ericP]

JanneS, roger that

14:43:34 [DanC]

Zakim, pick a scribe

14:43:34 [Zakim]

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

14:43:38 [DanC]

Zakim, pick a scribe

14:43:38 [Zakim]

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

14:43:47 [DanC]

Zakim, pick a scribe

14:43:47 [Zakim]

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

14:44:11 [EliasT]

Makefile has been committed

14:44:17 [ericP]

next meeting: 1 week hence, scribe: KendallC

14:44:30 [patH]

back now.

14:47:05 [Zakim]

-JanneS

14:47:26 [JanneS]

uh, redialling

14:48:13 [Zakim]

+??P3

14:48:21 [JanneS]

Zakim, ??P3 is JanneS

14:48:21 [Zakim]

+JanneS; got it

14:49:38 [DanC]

agenda + note on querying lists

14:49:54 [DanC]

Zakim, next item

14:49:54 [Zakim]

agendum 4. "SPARQL Protocol and WSDL" taken up [from DanC]

14:52:10 [DanC]

Zakim, who's on the phone?

14:52:10 [Zakim]

On the phone I see AndyS, HiroyukiS, PatH, DanC, SteveH, Kendall_Clark, jeen, ericP, Bijan_Parsia, Yoshio, DaveB, LeeF, EliasT, JanneS

14:52:36 [ericP]

kendall, the WSDL WG resolution favors the current SPARQL WSDL plan

14:52:51 [ericP]

DanC, does that mean our WSDL is ready?

14:52:53 [DanC]

DanC: I've seen responses to our (DAWG's) last call comments on WSDL 2.0 to the effect that "yes, we'll make changes to accomodate your needs" and mail back from kendall saying "ok, we're happy"

14:53:00 [ericP]

kendall, not quite

14:54:02 [ericP]

Bijan, the WSD WG is working on the ability to POST a URL-encoded query to a bare UIR

14:54:14 [EliasT]

Zakim, mute me

14:54:14 [Zakim]

EliasT should now be muted

14:55:09 [DanC]

# RE: limitations of {http output serialization} Jonathan Marsh (Thursday, 6 October)

14:55:09 [DanC]

* Re: limitations of {http output serialization} Kendall Clark (Monday, 17 October)

14:55:13 [DanC]

http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-ws-desc-comments/2005Oct/thread.html

14:56:59 [ericP_]

ericP_ has joined #dawg

14:57:11 [DanC]

ACTION KendallC: propose revised WSDL descripton of SPARQL protocol w.r.t. [missed]

14:57:31 [DaveB]

on ... fault serialization and output serialization (I heard)

14:59:27 [DanC]

tx. daveb

14:59:43 [DanC]

# RE: fault serialization Jonathan Marsh (Wednesday, 5 October)

14:59:43 [DanC]

* Re: fault serialization Kendall Clark (Monday, 17 October)

15:00:51 [DanC]

so my action continues...

15:00:55 [DanC]

ACTION: DanC to notifty DAWG of WSDL response to our WSDL comments [PENDING]

15:01:59 [ericP]

ericP has joined #dawg

15:02:14 [DanC]

. ACTION: DanC to ask WSDL WG to review WSDL 1.1 and WSDL 2 SPARQL protocol stuff, once both are available

15:03:07 [DanC]

DONE: DanC to ask WSDL WG to review WSDL 2 SPARQL protocol stuff, once both are available

15:03:23 [DanC]

ACTION: DanC to ask WSDL WG to review WSDL 1.1 protocol stuff, once it's are available [PENDING]

15:04:21 [AndyS]

I noted <fault name="QueryRequestRefused" whttp:code="500"/> but 500 is server internal error. http://www.w3.org/Protocols/HTTP/HTRESP.html

15:04:21 [DanC]

Zakim, next item

15:04:21 [Zakim]

agendum 5. "# issues#rdfSemantics" taken up [from DanC]

15:04:32 [DanC]

Zakim, who's on the phone?

15:04:33 [Zakim]

On the phone I see AndyS, HiroyukiS, PatH, DanC, SteveH, Kendall_Clark, jeen, ericP, Bijan_Parsia, Yoshio, DaveB, LeeF, EliasT (muted), JanneS

15:04:39 [kendall]

What's the point, Andy?

15:04:56 [DanC]

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

15:05:02 [kendall]

500 is the most general "request unprocessed because of server condition" code... Is there another you'd suggest?

15:05:16 [AndyS]

500 is not the right code (server error) 4xx are client errors

15:05:39 [kendall]

but refusing to process a query isn't a client error

15:05:51 [SteveH]

AndyS, Kendall and I discussed this on the list previously...

15:05:59 [kendall]

yep

15:06:37 [AndyS]

I still think it is wrong. See earlier ref.

15:07:07 [kendall]

Yes, I see that you think it's wrong. I still don't understand why you think it's wrong and what you would suggest using otherwise.

15:08:30 [kendall]

Just read the spec:

15:08:38 [kendall]

10.5 Server Error 5xx

15:08:38 [kendall]

Response status codes beginning with the digit "5" indicate cases in which the server is aware that it has erred or is incapable of performing the request.

15:08:41 [AndyS]

I have just said why. Refused !=> server internal error. See 400 : The request had bad syntax or was inherently impossible to be satisfied.

15:08:53 [kendall]

That's not what the spec says, Andy.

15:09:09 [kendall]

500 says, explicitly, that the server is "incapable of performing hte request"

15:09:40 [kendall]

400 only says "by the server due to malformed syntax", which is not what QueryRequestRefused semantics are.

15:10:21 [kendall]

500 says "The server encountered an unexpected condition which prevented it from fulfilling the request.

15:10:21 [kendall]

"

15:10:22 [EliasT]

400 The request had bad syntax or was inherently impossible to be satisfied.

15:10:52 [kendall]

Well, that's not what my copy of HTTP 1.1 on the W3C site says, interestingly enough. :>

15:10:59 [kendall]

http://www.w3.org/Protocols/rfc2616/rfc2616-sec10.html

15:11:36 [EliasT]

ahh different documents.

15:11:49 [LeeF]

Let's split the difference and make it 450. ;-)

15:11:54 [kendall]

heh

15:12:02 [kendall]

i mean, none of them is precisely right, clearly.

15:12:20 [EliasT]

Response status codes beginning with the digit "5" indicate cases in which the server is aware that it has erred or is incapable of performing the request.

15:13:03 [kendall]

yep, as I quoted. :>

15:13:15 [EliasT]

is the service incapable or just not willing?

15:13:16 [EliasT]

:-)

15:13:48 [kendall]

Well, yes, of course. There's a bit of semantic stretch in *any* of them. ;>

15:14:13 [kendall]

500 are not all server *errors* anyway!

15:14:25 [kendall]

not available now, or not implemented are not errors

15:15:57 [EliasT]

I guess it's more folk wisdom to not use 500 except for crashes.

15:16:15 [kendall]

so i'd be fine with 501, then

15:16:26 [kendall]

but i'm totally unconvinced that it should be a 4xx

15:16:43 [kendall]

but i'm also unconvinced by mere appeals to folk wisdom

15:16:58 [EliasT]

right. agree. nothing like a good spec to follow.

15:17:48 [AndyS]

Folk wisdom matters here because app servers do it automatically :-)

15:18:38 [kendall]

if someone wants to suggest 501 over 500, I think that's reasonable

15:18:52 [kendall]

I don't care that much what app servers do. Which ones? Not the one I use.

15:18:58 [DaveB]

checking the dawg charter http://www.w3.org/2003/12/swa/dawg-charter#rdfs-owl-queries it seems to hint that entailment could be in the service description or protocol

15:19:10 [ericP]

PatH: we need to keep bNode rigidity orthogonal to entailment selection

15:19:17 [ericP]

Bijan: [nods]

15:19:38 [bijan]

bijan has joined #dawg

15:19:41 [AndyS]

"406 Not Acceptable"?

15:20:15 [ericP]

DanC, editor comments?

15:20:32 [ericP]

AndyS, I think redundancy optional will have hidden traps

15:21:17 [kendall]

Nope, 406 is wrong too.

15:21:55 [DanC]

Dave: I think the results format should reflect the entailment used, in the "parameterized entailment" case

15:22:19 [bijan]

+1 to dave's comment

15:22:20 [kendall]

4xx is wrong: " The 4xx class of status code is intended for cases in which the client seems to have erred." There's no implication to that effect in QueryRequestRefused; in fact, I *think* it says otherwise explicitly.

15:22:21 [AndyS]

We have the <link> as well for an open ended set of info

15:22:40 [bijan]

I'm fine exploiting <link> for that

15:23:33 [DaveB]

I'd probably suggest a separate <entailment> (handwave) term

15:23:42 [ericP]

Bob _:a

15:23:45 [ericP]

Bob _:b

15:24:34 [ericP]

*

15:24:37 [DanC]

EricP: I'd like to achieve a sort of minimalism where Bob/_:a and Bob/_:b would be reduced to Bob/_:a

15:24:53 [bijan]

You can keep the results set with told redundancy, then minimize that result set to check for non-rigid simple entailment

15:25:01 [AndyS]

Query: { ?Bob foaf:name "foo" }

15:25:51 [EliasT]

EliasT has joined #dawg

15:25:55 [DanC]

(I think we've gotten off track; we're not hearing the editors think about the spec impact of the 3 proposals; we're cooking up other proposals.)

15:26:25 [DanC]

(but since "redundancy optional" is pretty fuzzy...)

15:28:26 [patH]

Foaf is built with an implicit unique name assumption (quite common). So with Andy's query, distint bnode replies FOAF-entail two people.

15:28:37 [ericP]

DanC: tests already follow redundancy optional. will require an identifier for redundant rows to test LC design

15:29:21 [patH]

Even though that isnt a strictly correct RDF entailment, its not RDF-wrong. And a FOAF-savy querier to a FOAF-savvy source can communicarte usefully when 'redundancy' isnt removed.

15:30:26 [Zakim]

-EliasT

15:30:33 [bijan]

patH, but it seems like that should get a distinct uri indicating those assumptions

15:30:47 [bijan]

I.e., it should exploit this extensibility point

15:30:53 [Zakim]

+Enrico_Franconi

15:31:06 [ericP]

[DanC and AndyS discuss { _:x bindsTo "X" ; bindsTo _:X } == { _:x bindsTo "X" } ?]

15:31:07 [DanC]

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

15:31:27 [patH]

Well, sure, Bijan, but we have to be careful not to build in redundancy-removal so as to rule this opiut. Also there is no 'name' for this.

15:31:39 [patH]

opiut/out

15:32:27 [bijan]

I agree about the building in redundacy-removal so as to preclude important options, natch :)

15:32:34 [bijan]

And I agree that there is currently no name for it

15:32:57 [bijan]

but I suggest that providing that name isn't our job, but hte foaf community's

15:33:10 [patH]

Bijan, I think all I am saying is that the bnode-redundancy should be ortthogonal to entailment, whcih was laredy made.

15:33:16 [bijan]

We support them by supporting and extensiviblity point

15:33:17 [bijan]

yeah

15:33:19 [bijan]

Which is cool

15:33:32 [bijan]

I think that woudl be a great example to discuss in the spec

15:33:37 [bijan]

To encourage peopel in that direction

15:33:40 [bijan]

If we had a primer :)

15:33:57 [kendall]

Do not stare at Happy Fun Ball.

15:34:19 [DanC]

consider a 4th column... query parameterized

15:34:29 [DanC]

DaveB: it seems similar to limit

15:35:19 [DanC]

q+ to note "parameterized entialment" seems to interact with the bounds of the charter

15:35:42 [DanC]

ack danc

15:35:42 [Zakim]

DanC, you wanted to note "parameterized entialment" seems to interact with the bounds of the charter

15:36:01 [patH]

Dan, I thikn point is not so much for us to do this, as to not put out a design that rules it out as a future.

15:37:00 [ericP]

ooOOoo, a mime tree for entailment

15:37:47 [DanC]

poll: (a) LC design / (b) redundancy optional / (c) parameterized entailment / (d) query parameter

15:38:32 [patH]

(a), (c) as a second choice.

15:38:34 [DanC]

pat, I'm trying to actually address this issue. I want to talk about designs that people are interested to actively support: write text, write code, teach people to use, etc. Anything else is not a good use of WG telcon time.

15:39:35 [DanC]

Zakim, who's on the phone?

15:39:35 [Zakim]

On the phone I see AndyS, HiroyukiS, PatH, DanC, SteveH, Kendall_Clark, jeen, ericP, Bijan_Parsia, Yoshio, DaveB, LeeF, JanneS (muted), Enrico_Franconi

15:39:44 [AndyS]

AndyS a +0.5 b -1 c +1 d -1

15:40:25 [DanC]

HS: pref a, ok c

15:40:39 [DanC]

PH: a +0.5 b -1 c +1 d -1

15:40:58 [DanC]

DanC: (c)

15:41:18 [kendall]

KC: Strongly dislike A & B; prefer C to D.

15:41:20 [DanC]

Steve: c/d... can see lots of sides

15:41:55 [DanC]

DanC: (b), rather

15:42:32 [DanC]

Jeen: c, maybe b

15:42:45 [DanC]

EricP: (a)

15:43:11 [jeen]

(I am neutral on option a and strongly dislike d)

15:43:38 [bijan]

Bijan: a -2, b -2, C +1, D +1(with some confusion), C&D +maybe

15:44:09 [Yoshio]

Yoshio prefers (c). It's all up to the service policy, and that should be clearly stated in the service description. Against (d), it will put too much burden to small servers if it should be responsible for doing what is required

15:44:53 [DanC]

DaveB: +c, -.5 d, unsure about b

15:44:53 [JanneS]

Zakim, unmute JanneS

15:44:53 [Zakim]

JanneS should no longer be muted

15:45:03 [DaveB]

DanC captured it ok

15:45:15 [DanC]

Lee: like c, dunno d, don't like b

15:45:43 [DanC]

JanneS: c appeals, as does d; I'm OK with a

15:45:43 [JanneS]

c, a, -b, -d

15:45:52 [DanC]

s/as does d//

15:45:57 [franconi]

Enrico: a -2, b -2, C +1, D +? (I don't get it fully yet)

15:46:48 [kendall]

i'm going to choose random numbers between 0 and 1

15:46:56 [patH]

my c vote is assuming we get the bnoide issue right.

15:47:20 [JanneS]

I'm off to babysitting again.. bye

15:47:31 [Zakim]

-JanneS

15:49:52 [SteveH]

DanC, he didn't +0.5 AFAICT

15:52:28 [ericP]

patH, I think a lot of what we've been debating is how complicated the query treatment can be

15:52:31 [ericP]

... graph

15:52:37 [ericP]

... entailment node

15:52:44 [ericP]

... rigid bNodes

15:53:37 [ericP]

... can we embed all that in the choice of graph? Bijan opposes this.

15:54:14 [ericP]

DanC, we've invested 18 months in putting these in a single graph name

15:55:01 [patH]

Wel, seems to me that most of what we have done works quite well if we allow these to be identified separately, which is why I voted for c.

15:55:30 [DanC]

s/DanC, we've/DanC: we've/

15:58:01 [ericP]

i think both C and D will come from the client

15:58:42 [ericP]

Bijan: I'm more concearned with extensibility than with nailing down the current standards

15:58:50 [patH]

+1

15:59:05 [ericP]

... we need to identify RDF semantics, and RDFS doesn't seem tough

15:59:47 [ericP]

PathH: FOAF use Unique Name Assumption

16:00:37 [DanC]

ACTION Bijan: work with Pat to come up with a proposal re rdfSemantics. ETA 2 weeks.

16:00:52 [DaveB]

bye all

16:00:53 [AndyS]

Thanks for the offer Bijan and Pat

16:00:55 [Zakim]

-DaveB

16:01:03 [SteveH]

bye

16:01:22 [Zakim]

-SteveH

16:01:23 [Zakim]

-PatH

16:01:24 [Zakim]

-DanC

16:01:25 [Zakim]

-Bijan_Parsia

16:01:27 [Zakim]

-Kendall_Clark

16:01:28 [Zakim]

-jeen

16:01:30 [Zakim]

-Enrico_Franconi

16:01:31 [Zakim]

-Yoshio

16:01:33 [Zakim]

-HiroyukiS

16:01:35 [Zakim]

-ericP

16:01:41 [DanC]

ericp, I don't think Pat said FOAF. If he did, he misunderstood.

16:01:43 [Zakim]

-LeeF

16:01:55 [Zakim]

-AndyS

16:01:56 [Zakim]

SW_DAWG()10:30AM has ended

16:01:57 [Zakim]

Attendees were AndyS, LeeF, HiroyukiS, PatH, DanC, Kendall_Clark, SteveH, ericP, Bijan_Parsia, Yoshio, jeen, EliasT, JanneS, DaveB, Enrico_Franconi

16:02:01 [DanC]

DanC has changed the topic to: RDF Data Access 18 Oct. scribe: EricP http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/DataAccess/

16:02:08 [ericP]

DanC, I'm pretty sure he pronounced it Fo-af

16:02:22 [ericP]

he also pointed out earlier that FOAF uses UNA

16:02:43 [ericP]

.9 confidence in my attribution

16:02:53 [DanC]

yeah, I parsed it as "FOAF" at first, but FOAF really doesn't have UNA, so I concluded that what he said was KOAN or some such

16:03:15 [DanC]

maybe he really meant "FOAF has UNA". He's wrong, in that case.

16:03:41 [ericP]

it was the example that came up when i was proposing minimal entailed results

16:03:42 [bijan]

He meant that FOAF has a kinda UNA wrt certain bnodes

16:03:53 [bijan]

In a lot of practice

16:04:00 [bijan]

I don't know I agree, but I can see similar cases

16:04:05 [DanC]

hm

16:04:19 [ericP]

it came up in the context of a non-comprehensive query

16:04:32 [ericP]

i.e., distinguishing atrributes were not selected

16:04:57 [ericP]

only the name ("Bob") was selected, iirc

16:05:17 [RRSAgent]

I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2005/10/18-dawg-minutes.html ericP

16:05:23 [ericP]

good bot

16:06:20 [Yoshio]

Yoshio has left #dawg

16:12:14 [patH]

I did mean FOAF, and OK, its more complicated. Its not strictly UNA, but it has sme of that quality. The OntoWorks reasoner does this too. It uses UNA as a default, unless it knows a=b.

16:12:26 [DanC]

ok.

16:13:14 [patH]

BUt the point is, there are cases where its useful for a query to want to know about "redundant' bnodes, becuase they might not be redundant in some grander scheme of things (which is not itself rulked out by RDF semantics.)

16:14:00 [bijan]

patH, I (with enrico) will start our action by applying, in some way, this: http://www.inf.unibz.it/~tessaris/stuff/sparqlcomments.html

16:14:03 [bijan]

Those recommendations

16:15:25 [patH]

OK. For the record, I (still) don't follow the point in Bnodes(a) about why the suggested alterntaive doenst work.

16:16:18 [patH]

Also, in Bnodes(b), the words "we should prevent this" loom large in my defend-the-spec meter.

16:16:52 [patH]

BUt lets take this discussion to email, OK?

16:18:01 [bijan]

Yeah

16:18:10 [bijan]

It's just a starting place

16:18:24 [patH]

OK, just telling you where it hurts.

16:19:49 [bijan]

Cool

16:33:40 [DanC]

regrets+ josD

16:46:12 [DaveB]

DaveB has joined #dawg

17:33:28 [bijan]

bijan has left #dawg

17:56:26 [Zakim]

Zakim has left #dawg

18:06:59 [patH]

patH has left #dawg

18:37:53 [DanC]

RRSAgent, make logs world-access

18:38:04 [DanC]

RRSAgent, bye

18:38:04 [RRSAgent]

I see 9 open action items saved in http://www.w3.org/2005/10/18-dawg-actions.rdf :

18:38:04 [RRSAgent]

ACTION: DaveB to to propose source test to approve [CONTINUED] [3]

18:38:04 [RRSAgent]

recorded in http://www.w3.org/2005/10/18-dawg-irc#T14-36-42

18:38:04 [RRSAgent]

ACTION: DanC to follow up re optional test based on op:dateTime triple [CONTINUED] [4]

18:38:04 [RRSAgent]

recorded in http://www.w3.org/2005/10/18-dawg-irc#T14-36-53

18:38:04 [RRSAgent]

ACTION: DanC to notify www-rdf-comments about difference between RDF URI refs and IRIs, e.g. spaces [CONTINUED] [5]

18:38:04 [RRSAgent]

recorded in http://www.w3.org/2005/10/18-dawg-irc#T14-37-02

18:38:04 [RRSAgent]

ACTION: DanC to publish WSDL 1.1 sparql protocol note, contingent on thumbs-up from KC, EricP, Lee/Elias [CONTINUED] [8]

18:38:04 [RRSAgent]

recorded in http://www.w3.org/2005/10/18-dawg-irc#T14-38-37

18:38:04 [RRSAgent]

ACTION: Jeen try to reproduces EliasT's protocol testing results [9]

18:38:04 [RRSAgent]

recorded in http://www.w3.org/2005/10/18-dawg-irc#T14-41-17

18:38:04 [RRSAgent]

ACTION: KendallC to propose revised WSDL descripton of SPARQL protocol w.r.t. [missed] [10]

18:38:04 [RRSAgent]

recorded in http://www.w3.org/2005/10/18-dawg-irc#T14-57-11

18:38:04 [RRSAgent]

ACTION: DanC to notifty DAWG of WSDL response to our WSDL comments [PENDING] [11]

18:38:04 [RRSAgent]

recorded in http://www.w3.org/2005/10/18-dawg-irc#T15-00-55

18:38:04 [RRSAgent]

ACTION: DanC to ask WSDL WG to review WSDL 1.1 protocol stuff, once it's are available [PENDING] [12]

18:38:04 [RRSAgent]

recorded in http://www.w3.org/2005/10/18-dawg-irc#T15-03-23

18:38:04 [RRSAgent]

ACTION: Bijan to work with Pat to come up with a proposal re rdfSemantics. ETA 2 weeks. [13]

18:38:04 [RRSAgent]

recorded in http://www.w3.org/2005/10/18-dawg-irc#T16-00-37