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