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
16:45:17 <LeeF> ... more wording discussions of where to put "up to bnode renaming" and the like ...
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