IRC log of dawg on 2006-01-26
Timestamps are in UTC.
- 15:59:51 [RRSAgent]
- RRSAgent has joined #dawg
- 15:59:51 [RRSAgent]
- logging to http://www.w3.org/2006/01/26-dawg-irc
- 15:59:57 [Zakim]
- +[IBMCambridge]
- 16:00:04 [LeeF]
- Zakim, IBMCambridge is temporarily LeeF
- 16:00:12 [Zakim]
- +LeeF; got it
- 16:00:17 [LeeF]
- Meeting: RDF Data Access
- 16:00:18 [Zakim]
- +EricP
- 16:00:20 [LeeF]
- Chair: DanC
- 16:00:22 [LeeF]
- Scribe: LeeF
- 16:00:30 [Zakim]
- +DanC
- 16:00:34 [Zakim]
- sorry, LeeF, I do not recognize a party named 'IBMCambridge'
- 16:00:40 [Zakim]
- +[Bozen-Bolzano]
- 16:00:42 [Zakim]
- +??P14
- 16:00:50 [Zakim]
- +Sven_Groppe
- 16:00:59 [SerT]
- zakim, ??P14 is me
- 16:00:59 [Zakim]
- +SerT; got it
- 16:01:25 [kendallclark]
- kendallclark has joined #dawg
- 16:01:26 [LeeF]
- zakim, ??P14 is NOT REALLY SerT
- 16:01:26 [Zakim]
- I don't understand '??P14 is NOT REALLY SerT', LeeF
- 16:01:40 [SerT]
- zakim, [Bozen-Bolzano] is me
- 16:01:41 [Zakim]
- sorry, SerT, I do not recognize a party named '[Bozen-Bolzano]'
- 16:01:44 [LeeF]
- zakim, who's on the phone?
- 16:01:44 [Zakim]
- On the phone I see EliasT, AndyS, LeeF, EricP, DanC, SerT.a, SerT, Sven_Groppe
- 16:02:01 [ericP]
- zakim, ??P14 is Libby
- 16:02:01 [Zakim]
- I already had ??P14 as SerT, ericP
- 16:02:02 [SerT]
- zakim, Bozen-Bolzano is me
- 16:02:02 [Zakim]
- sorry, SerT, I do not recognize a party named 'Bozen-Bolzano'
- 16:02:05 [Zakim]
- +Kendall_Clark
- 16:02:06 [Zakim]
- +??P10
- 16:02:28 [SerT]
- \me zakim, [Bozen-Bolzano] is me
- 16:02:35 [DanC]
- Zakim, SerT is Libby
- 16:02:35 [Zakim]
- +Libby; got it
- 16:02:38 [Zakim]
- +PatH
- 16:02:48 [patH]
- patH has joined #dawg
- 16:02:52 [DanC]
- Zakim, mute libby temporarily
- 16:02:52 [Zakim]
- Libby should now be muted
- 16:02:55 [Zakim]
- +[IPcaller]
- 16:03:10 [SteveH]
- Zakim, [IPcaller] is SteveH
- 16:03:11 [Zakim]
- Libby should now be unmuted again
- 16:03:13 [Zakim]
- +SteveH; got it
- 16:03:18 [SteveH]
- I'm also using skype
- 16:03:40 [Souri]
- Souri has joined #dawg
- 16:03:43 [ericP]
- Meeting: RDF Data Access
- 16:03:43 [kendallclark]
- i'd happily agree to be muted, but only if it were permanent.
- 16:03:46 [DanC]
- <ericP> DanC, meeting record 24 Jan 2006 sent --> http://www.w3.org/2006/01/24-dawg-minutes
- 16:03:47 [ericP]
- Chair: DanC
- 16:04:00 [ericP]
- Scribe: LeeF
- 16:04:29 [DanC]
- the http://www.w3.org/2006/01/24-dawg-minutes minutes are missing an action on me to publish proto-wd, but otherwise OK
- 16:04:46 [DanC]
- PROPOSED: to approve http://www.w3.org/2006/01/24-dawg-minutes ammended to show an action on DanC to publish proto-wd
- 16:05:00 [DanC]
- Zakim, who's on the phone?
- 16:05:02 [Zakim]
- On the phone I see EliasT, AndyS, LeeF, EricP, DanC, SerT.a, Libby, Sven_Groppe, ??P10, Kendall_Clark, PatH, SteveH
- 16:05:25 [DanC]
- Zakim, ??P10 is Souri
- 16:05:28 [Zakim]
- +Souri; got it
- 16:06:58 [kendallclark]
- Hmm, I didn't realize that procedural point, Dan.
- 16:07:15 [DanC]
- Zakim, take up item Toward
- 16:07:15 [Zakim]
- 'Toward' matches agenda items 2 and 4, DanC
- 16:07:20 [DanC]
- Zakim, take up item 4
- 16:07:20 [Zakim]
- agendum 4. "Toward CR" taken up [from DanC]
- 16:07:22 [ericP]
- Subject: [OK?] Re: minor technical on 11.2.1 Invocation
- 16:08:13 [Zakim]
- +[IPcaller]
- 16:08:19 [EnricoFranconi]
- zakim, IPcaller is me
- 16:08:19 [Zakim]
- +EnricoFranconi; got it
- 16:08:53 [ericP]
- Souri, can you respond to http://www.w3.org/mid/20060125181430.GC412@w3.org ?
- 16:09:22 [JosDeRoo]
- JosDeRoo has joined #dawg
- 16:14:18 [DanC]
- ... discussion of comments from individuals who are affiliated with organizations that are WG members
- 16:14:22 [LeeF]
- DanC: We need closure responses from Oracle (Fred Z, Souri) on our responses to Fred's LC comments
- 16:14:39 [LeeF]
- s/need/would like/
- 16:14:47 [kendallclark]
- LeeF: I meant "illegal according to W3C policies and procedures", not juridically illegal.
- 16:16:00 [kendallclark]
- is that cwm w/ Pychinko dan? :>
- 16:16:42 [Zakim]
- -EliasT
- 16:18:49 [DanC]
- . ACTION PatH: draft response to @@
- 16:18:49 [patH]
- http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-dawg-comments/2006Jan/0065.html
- 16:18:49 [Zakim]
- +Jos_De_Roo
- 16:19:06 [DanC]
- ACTION PatH: draft response to http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-dawg-comments/2006Jan/0065.html and send to the WG list
- 16:19:22 [DanC]
- Zakim, close item 4
- 16:19:22 [Zakim]
- agendum 4, Toward CR, closed
- 16:19:22 [Zakim]
- I see 4 items remaining on the agenda; the next one is
- 16:19:22 [Zakim]
- 1. Convene [from DanC]
- 16:19:36 [DanC]
- PROPOSED: to approve http://www.w3.org/2006/01/24-dawg-minutes ammended to show an action on DanC to publish proto-wd
- 16:19:48 [DanC]
- so RESOLVED
- 16:19:55 [DanC]
- # PROPOSED: to meet again Tue, 31 Jan 14:30Z;
- 16:20:14 [DanC]
- Zakim, pick a scribe
- 16:20:14 [Zakim]
- Not knowing who is chairing or who scribed recently, I propose SteveH
- 16:20:18 [SteveH]
- sorry, cant
- 16:20:19 [DanC]
- Zakim, pick a scribe
- 16:20:19 [Zakim]
- Not knowing who is chairing or who scribed recently, I propose AndyS
- 16:20:23 [DanC]
- Zakim, pick a scribe
- 16:20:23 [Zakim]
- Not knowing who is chairing or who scribed recently, I propose AndyS
- 16:20:26 [DanC]
- Zakim, pick a scribe
- 16:20:26 [Zakim]
- Not knowing who is chairing or who scribed recently, I propose SerT.a
- 16:20:27 [EnricoFranconi]
- regrets for next tuesday meeting
- 16:20:51 [LeeF]
- Next meeting -- Tue, 31 Jan 14:30Z, scribe SerT
- 16:20:54 [SerT]
- fine
- 16:20:54 [AndyS]
- We agreed to meet twice-weekly in Jan - are we continuing to Jan 34?
- 16:20:59 [SerT]
- I'll scribe
- 16:21:44 [DanC]
- Zakim, next item
- 16:21:44 [Zakim]
- agendum 1. "Convene" taken up [from DanC]
- 16:21:49 [DanC]
- Zakim, close item 1
- 16:21:49 [Zakim]
- agendum 1, Convene, closed
- 16:21:50 [Zakim]
- I see 3 items remaining on the agenda; the next one is
- 16:21:52 [Zakim]
- 2. Toward updated protocol WD (and results format WD) [from DanC]
- 16:21:52 [DanC]
- Zakim, next item
- 16:21:52 [Zakim]
- agendum 2. "Toward updated protocol WD (and results format WD)" taken up [from DanC]
- 16:22:02 [kendallclark]
- I like when they're late, so I don't have to read them! :>
- 16:23:12 [DanC]
- this one? > http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/DataAccess/sparql-xml-syntax/
- 16:24:01 [EliasT]
- EliasT has joined #dawg
- 16:24:17 [Zakim]
- +[IBMCambridge]
- 16:24:25 [EliasT]
- Zakim, IBMCambridge is me
- 16:24:25 [Zakim]
- +EliasT; got it
- 16:25:03 [LeeF]
- DanC: Can we satisfy the link checker by using example.org for this namespace?
- 16:25:19 [DanC]
- this is in SOTD? http://www.w3.org/TR/2006/WD-rdf-sparql-protocol-20060125/
- 16:25:27 [DanC]
- no...
- 16:25:59 [LeeF]
- kendallclark: there's some other broken protocol link in the LC status page
- 16:26:28 [DanC]
- WG is OK with 10 Feb due date
- 16:26:36 [DanC]
- Zakim, next item
- 16:26:36 [Zakim]
- agendum 3. "issues rdfSemantics, owlDisjunction" taken up [from DanC]
- 16:26:58 [LeeF]
- DanC, do you consider "ACTION: DanC to noodle on status, publish" to be done or continuing?
- 16:27:02 [DanC]
- continuing
- 16:27:05 [LeeF]
- ACTION: DanC to noodle on status, publish
- 16:27:06 [LeeF]
- CONTINUES
- 16:27:32 [LeeF]
- AndyS: outstanding rdfSemantics issue is if SPARQL defines G' = G
- 16:27:53 [LeeF]
- http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-dawg/2006JanMar/0293.html
- 16:28:06 [LeeF]
- http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-dawg/2006JanMar/0292.html
- 16:28:10 [EnricoFranconi]
- FUB is neutral whether G=G' is in the spec ; we just believe that it is more consistent with the SPARQL philosophy if it is in the spec
- 16:28:15 [LeeF]
- 293
- 16:28:26 [DanC]
- -> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-dawg/2006JanMar/0293.html Pat on etc.
- 16:28:54 [DanC]
- Thu, 26 Jan 2006 10:06:13 -0600
- 16:29:20 [DanC]
- -> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-dawg/2006JanMar/0292.html Pat's msg of Thu, 26 Jan 2006 09:55:06 -0600
- 16:29:43 [kendallclark]
- lots of x-talk
- 16:29:46 [LeeF]
- patH: the scope of answer bnodes has to be defined by G'
- 16:29:51 [DanC]
- (Pat, you already lost Andy)
- 16:30:45 [DanC]
- Andy asks to focus on http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/DataAccess/rq23/ [I wonder which section]
- 16:31:13 [LeeF]
- patH: in *our* SPARQL B is defined to be the identifiers in G'
- 16:31:35 [LeeF]
- rq23 states "The scoping set is the set of all IRIs and blank nodes in G'."
- 16:31:44 [AndyS]
- q+ to discuss the text
- 16:32:28 [AndyS]
- http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/DataAccess/rq23/#BGPsparql
- 16:32:29 [EliasT]
- EliasT has joined #dawg
- 16:32:49 [LeeF]
- patH: B is just a parameter in the general definition; for SPARQL we constrain B to be precisely the identifiers (terms?) in G'
- 16:32:51 [LeeF]
- EnricoFranconi: agree
- 16:33:13 [LeeF]
- patH: AndyS is asking whether G' has to be identical to G -- that is too strong -- should be graph equivalent
- 16:33:26 [LeeF]
- EnricoFranconi: if G is not identical to G' we end up with a SPARQL that is not purely syntactical
- 16:33:35 [LeeF]
- patH: I think that was always the intention.
- 16:33:52 [LeeF]
- DanC: can we observe this with a test?
- 16:34:09 [LeeF]
- patH: I think the tests assume that bnodes in the answers are independent of bnodes in the graph
- 16:34:45 [DanC]
- Andy reads "The scoping set is the set of all IRIs and blank nodes in G'." in 2.5.2.
- 16:34:47 [LeeF]
- AndyS: looking at 2.5.2 ( http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/DataAccess/rq23/#BGPsparql ) -- 2nd paragraph says "The scoping set is the set of all IRIs and blank nodes in G'." -- is that right?
- 16:34:54 [LeeF]
- patH: should also include literals
- 16:35:38 [LeeF]
- AndyS: for consistency, in the def'n of BGP uses the word "identifiers" -- should that be RDF terms?
- 16:35:41 [LeeF]
- patH: yes
- 16:35:42 [DanC]
- ("RDF term" includes bnode, yes?)
- 16:35:42 [LeeF]
- EnricoFranconi: yes
- 16:36:09 [DanC]
- (is it feasible to give andy 3 minutes to do s/identifier/RDF term/ now?)
- 16:36:47 [DanC]
- "up to bnode renaming" makes sense to me
- 16:36:53 [LeeF]
- EnricoFranconi: it is enough to change paragraph 3 of 2.5.2 by adding "up to bnode renaming" at the end of the last 3 sentences
- 16:38:54 [LeeF]
- EnricoFranconi: semantic web colleagues have trouble understanding wording of definitions -- both for precision but mostly for understanding
- 16:40:59 [DanC]
- PatH: s/the set of all the pattern solutions is unique./the set of all the pattern solutions is unique up to bnode renaming./
- 16:41:00 [LeeF]
- ... discussion of precise wording ...
- 16:41:49 [DanC]
- I see Revision: 1.619 of Date: 2006/01/26 16:41:24
- 16:41:53 [AndyS]
- http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/DataAccess/rq23/#BGPsparql
- 16:43:09 [Zakim]
- -LeeF
- 16:43:42 [Zakim]
- +[IBMCambridge]
- 16:43:49 [LeeF]
- zakim, IBMCambridge is LeeF
- 16:43:50 [Zakim]
- +LeeF; got it
- 16:44:44 [DanC]
- type that, pat?
- 16:44:51 [DanC]
- maybe andy got it
- 16:45:24 [DanC]
- 1.620...
- 16:45:46 [SerT]
- I'm not sure a pattern solution is unique, it's the answer set which is unique
- 16:46:14 [patH]
- text says 'set of all'
- 16:46:14 [DanC]
- I read "set of all the pattern solutions is unique up to blank node renaming."
- 16:47:25 [DanC]
- Ser/PatH: s/the uniqueness property of pattern solutions/a uniqueness property/
- 16:47:30 [LeeF]
- patH: caterpillars, mushrooms, and the like.
- 16:47:57 [DanC]
- 1.621
- 16:49:45 [DanC]
- Enrico: why do we repeat defn graph equivalent?
- 16:50:04 [DanC]
- AndyS: because rdf abstract syntax doesn't have variables
- 16:51:19 [DanC]
- ... discussion of where some defns should go...
- 16:51:42 [LeeF]
- AndyS: moving 3rd paragraph from 2.5.2 to before 2.5.1 ...
- 16:51:48 [LeeF]
- EnricoFranconi: might need to be in a box (definition)
- 16:52:50 [DanC]
- yup, 1.623 $ of $Date: 2006/01/26 16:52:30
- 16:53:20 [LeeF]
- patH: 1.623 looks good
- 16:53:20 [EliasT]
- EliasT has joined #dawg
- 16:53:33 [DanC]
- PROPOSED: that SPARQL QL editor's draft 1.623 addresses issue rdfSemantics and is sufficient to postpone issue owlDisjunction.
- 16:53:40 [LeeF]
- patH: maybe not.
- 16:54:02 [LeeF]
- patH: whence BGP'
- 16:54:14 [LeeF]
- EnricoFranconi: that was from mymessages that allowed getting rid of the OrderedMerge
- 16:55:44 [LeeF]
- DanC: is the definition correct as stated, modulo elegance
- 16:56:30 [LeeF]
- patH: this is to handle told bnodes, right?
- 16:56:34 [LeeF]
- EnricoFranconi: exactly
- 16:57:28 [SerT]
- BGP' allows the server to change bnodes in the queries
- 16:57:54 [LeeF]
- AndyS: I've been concentrating on SPARQL v1 and am surprised that so much indirection is necessary -- if it's needed for extension points then that's fine but should have text explaining that
- 16:59:19 [EnricoFranconi]
- Pat, please read emails !
- 17:00:03 [EnricoFranconi]
- http://www.w3.org/mid/992AE607-17D4-44AF-BF5C-31E3E56C857F@inf.unibz.it
- 17:00:26 [DanC]
- PROPOSED: that SPARQL QL editor's draft 1.623 addresses issue rdfSemantics and is sufficient to postpone issue owlDisjunction.
- 17:00:42 [DanC]
- PROPOSED: that SPARQL QL editor's draft 1.623 section 2.5 addresses issue rdfSemantics and is sufficient to postpone issue owlDisjunction.
- 17:00:49 [EnricoFranconi]
- +1
- 17:01:03 [SerT]
- +1
- 17:01:29 [DanC]
- RESOLVED, Hayes objecting
- 17:02:03 [EnricoFranconi]
- Pat, we can convince you offline!
- 17:03:06 [DanC]
- ACTION AndyS: propose a publication plan
- 17:03:15 [patH]
- You can try, but I doubt it. Ive alrady given way on a lot I don't like in the name of consensus, but this is too far.
- 17:04:19 [DanC]
- agenda?
- 17:04:37 [DanC]
- Lee, please show the actions under 5 as continued
- 17:04:50 [LeeF]
- Roger.
- 17:05:09 [LeeF]
- ACTION: EricP to fix test schema to match manifest with negative tests [recorded in 09/27-dawg-minutes.html#action16]
- 17:05:11 [LeeF]
- CONTINUeS
- 17:05:17 [LeeF]
- ACTION: DanC to follow up re optional test based on op:dateTime triple
- 17:05:20 [LeeF]
- CONTINUES
- 17:05:27 [LeeF]
- # ACTION DaveB: add to test suite the temperature case from comment on truth tables in commentor's message
- 17:05:29 [LeeF]
- CONTINUES
- 17:05:32 [LeeF]
- ACTION DaveB: add to test suite the temperature case from comment on truth tables in commentor's message
- 17:05:34 [LeeF]
- CONTINUES
- 17:08:10 [DanC]
- http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-dawg-comments/2006Jan/thread.html
- 17:08:35 [LeeF]
- ADJOURNED.
- 17:08:42 [Zakim]
- -Jos_De_Roo
- 17:08:45 [LeeF]
- RRSAgent, please draft minutes
- 17:08:45 [RRSAgent]
- I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2006/01/26-dawg-minutes.html LeeF
- 17:08:47 [DanC]
- enrico, maybe http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-dawg-comments/2006Jan/0063.html ?
- 17:09:19 [Zakim]
- -Libby
- 17:09:21 [LeeF]
- RRSAgent, make logs world-access
- 17:09:24 [Zakim]
- -SteveH
- 17:09:39 [LeeF]
- RRSAgent, make minutes world-access
- 17:09:39 [RRSAgent]
- I'm logging. I don't understand 'make minutes world-access', LeeF. Try /msg RRSAgent help
- 17:09:45 [EnricoFranconi]
- I'll take care to the WG of http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-dawg-comments/2006Jan/0063.html
- 17:09:48 [LeeF]
- RRSAgent, nevermind.
- 17:09:48 [RRSAgent]
- I'm logging. I don't understand 'nevermind.', LeeF. Try /msg RRSAgent help
- 17:13:21 [AndyS]
- AndyS has left #dawg
- 17:13:24 [Zakim]
- -AndyS
- 17:13:56 [Zakim]
- -LeeF
- 17:14:04 [DanC]
- revision 1.105
- 17:14:04 [DanC]
- date: 2006/01/26 16:30:17; author: kclark; state: Exp; lines: +6 -3
- 17:14:04 [DanC]
- changing bad URIs
- 17:14:13 [Zakim]
- -Kendall_Clark
- 17:14:15 [Zakim]
- -DanC
- 17:14:17 [Zakim]
- -EliasT
- 17:14:25 [Zakim]
- -Sven_Groppe
- 17:14:27 [Zakim]
- -PatH
- 17:14:29 [Zakim]
- -SerT.a
- 17:14:32 [Zakim]
- -EnricoFranconi
- 17:14:35 [SvenGroppe]
- SvenGroppe has left #dawg
- 17:14:43 [patH]
- patH has left #dawg
- 17:15:02 [Zakim]
- -Souri
- 17:15:22 [Zakim]
- -EricP
- 17:15:23 [Zakim]
- SW_DAWG()11:00AM has ended
- 17:15:24 [Zakim]
- Attendees were EliasT, AndyS, LeeF, EricP, DanC, Sven_Groppe, Kendall_Clark, Libby, PatH, SteveH, Souri, EnricoFranconi, Jos_De_Roo
- 17:17:40 [SerT]
- SerT has left #dawg
- 17:17:49 [EnricoFranconi]
- EnricoFranconi has left #dawg
- 17:21:32 [DanC]
- link checker still complaining about http://www.w3.org/TR/2006/WD-rdf-sparql-protocol-20060125/#conformance ... hmm...
- 17:21:40 [DanC]
- line 225
- 17:22:00 [DanC]
- aha... <a id="conf" name="conformance">4. Conformance</a>
- 18:00:29 [DanC]
- hm... objection from PatH. I didn't see that coming.
- 18:00:43 [DanC]
- I try not to put the question until I know who's going to object.
- 18:01:31 [DanC]
- I heard him say "I have no confidence this is right"; that led me to expect he'd abstain
- 18:02:54 [DanC]
- in fact, I try not to put the question until I have a record of why somebody is likely to object. I don't really understand the nature of Pat's objection. I shall have to find out
- 18:04:08 [DanC]
- hmm... part of the plan was that Pat would defend our decision to PFPS
- 18:04:39 [DanC]
- RRSAgent, stop