IRC log of dawg on 2006-06-27

Timestamps are in UTC.

14:31:26 [RRSAgent]
RRSAgent has joined #dawg
14:31:26 [RRSAgent]
logging to http://www.w3.org/2006/06/27-dawg-irc
14:32:00 [jeen]
yeah I know :/
14:32:18 [kendallclark]
zakim, unmute me
14:32:18 [Zakim]
Kendall_Clark should no longer be muted
14:32:34 [kendallclark]
unbelievable amounts of rain
14:32:52 [kendallclark]
zakim, unmute me
14:32:52 [Zakim]
Kendall_Clark was not muted, kendallclark
14:32:53 [patH]
you should move to the sunny gulf coast.
14:32:56 [kendallclark]
zakim, mute me
14:32:56 [Zakim]
Kendall_Clark should now be muted
14:33:03 [kendallclark]
heh, DC is usually hot and sunny in DC
14:33:04 [Zakim]
+ +33.8.72.56.aaaa
14:33:05 [kendallclark]
erp, in July
14:33:18 [Zakim]
+FredZ
14:33:20 [DanC]
Zakim, aaaa is EricP
14:33:20 [Zakim]
+EricP; got it
14:33:26 [kendallclark]
zakim, unmute me
14:33:26 [Zakim]
Kendall_Clark should no longer be muted
14:33:44 [DanC]
Zakim, take up item 1
14:33:44 [Zakim]
agendum 1. "Convene, take roll, review records (http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-dawg/2006AprJun/att-0185/20060620-minutes.html ) and agenda" taken up [from DanC]
14:34:07 [kendallclark]
zakim, who's on the phone?
14:34:07 [Zakim]
On the phone I see Kendall_Clark, DanC, PatH, EricP, FredZ
14:34:12 [DanC]
-> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-dawg/2006AprJun/att-0185/20060620-minutes.html DAWG minutes 20 Jun
14:34:45 [DanC]
Regrets+ Lee
14:34:49 [kendallclark]
Regrets: AndyS, SteveH, EliasT
14:35:19 [DanC]
(as I understand it, one offers regrets; the chair either accepts them or not)
14:35:42 [kendallclark]
jeen are you dialing in to the telcon?
14:36:06 [ericP]
i think he's just teasing us
14:36:11 [kendallclark]
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-dawg/2006AprJun/0185.html
14:36:16 [kendallclark]
Minutes from 20 June meeting
14:36:21 [jeen]
I'm trying. I'm using skype and it does not accept the passkey so I'm trying to get an operator to patch me through.
14:36:33 [kendallclark]
PROPOSED to accept them as a record of last week's meeting
14:36:36 [kendallclark]
2nd, DanC
14:36:40 [kendallclark]
RESOLVED
14:36:59 [DanC]
KC: no meeting next week nor the rest of July...
14:37:19 [DanC]
PROPOSED: to meet 1 Aug...
14:37:30 [DanC]
PROPOSED: to meet 1 Aug 14:30Z, KC to chair...
14:37:32 [kendallclark]
zakim, pick a scribe
14:37:32 [Zakim]
Not knowing who is chairing or who scribed recently, I propose PatH
14:37:45 [DanC]
EricP: I'm at risk for 1 Aug.
14:37:52 [DanC]
PatH: I'm at risk due to travel 1 Aug
14:37:58 [DanC]
FredZ: I'm at risk 1 Aug
14:38:18 [DanC]
KC: I'll find a scribe or something...
14:38:35 [kendallclark]
RESOLVED
14:38:37 [DanC]
RESOLVED: to meet to meet 1 Aug 14:30Z, KC to chair.
14:38:56 [kendallclark]
zakim, next agendum?
14:38:56 [Zakim]
I don't understand your question, kendallclark.
14:38:59 [kendallclark]
zakim, next agendum
14:38:59 [Zakim]
agendum 2. "Some proposed test cases http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-dawg/2006AprJun/0171.html" taken up [from DanC]
14:39:13 [FredZ]
FredZ has joined #dawg
14:39:20 [DanC]
ACTION: FredZ to write an email w/ a test for the test suite re: { P1 } UNION { P2 } OPTIONAL { P3 } [DONE]
14:39:21 [Zakim]
+??P8
14:39:39 [DanC]
Zakim, ??P8 is Jeen
14:39:39 [Zakim]
+Jeen; got it
14:40:20 [DanC]
PatH: I was surprised that putting a filter between two triples made [missed]
14:40:30 [DanC]
FredZ: yes, that's why I'm raising it.
14:41:40 [DanC]
"3. Same dataset, slightly revised query:"
14:42:49 [LeeF]
LeeF has joined #dawg
14:43:00 [kendallclark]
That definitively raises (or reopens) some issue... Not sure which.
14:43:08 [kendallclark]
I mean, Fred's 3b test
14:43:29 [DanC]
several regard Fred's "3. Same dataset, slightly revised query:" as surprising.
14:44:34 [DanC]
PatH: I think we discussed this and the scope of _:a is the {}s.
14:44:44 [DanC]
FredZ: that's not the way I read the definition of basic graph matching
14:45:13 [DanC]
EricP: is it enough to move the filters to the end?
14:45:22 [DanC]
FredZ: we could specify that, I suppose
14:45:37 [kendallclark]
I don't recall discussing that at all...
14:45:49 [DanC]
(I have a vague memory of discussing it)
14:46:08 [kendallclark]
ah, LeeF, I said you sent regrets. My bad.
14:46:16 [DanC]
he did
14:46:17 [kendallclark]
Attendees: +LeeF
14:46:25 [DanC]
no, he's not attending; he's lurking on IRC
14:46:25 [kendallclark]
*ah*, doh
14:47:19 [DanC]
(darn; Fred just read from where in the spec?)
14:47:31 [kendallclark]
Section 4.3...?
14:48:19 [DanC]
(the TOC seems to be hosed; http://www.w3.org/TR/rdf-sparql-query/#matchDEntail doesn't got to 4.3)
14:48:40 [DanC]
FredZ: I see "Any solution for the group graph pattern that can satisfy all the graph patterns in the group is valid, independently of the order that may be implied by the lexical order of the graph patterns in the group."
14:49:07 [DanC]
KC: that should be integrated with [missed], at least, yes?
14:49:19 [DanC]
EricP: so it should show up in a formal definition...?
14:49:27 [ericP]
-> http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/DataAccess/rq23/defns the extracted definitions
14:49:29 [DanC]
FredZ: I understood all the stuff outside the boxes to be commentary
14:50:41 [kendallclark]
FredZ: Spell out more clearly how to apply 4.3
14:50:42 [DanC]
FredZ: consider { {?x <v1> _:a .} FILTER (isIRI (?x)) {?x <v2> _:a} }... does 4.3 imply that you can erase the inner {}s?
14:51:30 [jeen]
q+ may be naive but why not simply widen the scope of blank nodes to be scoped to the query pattern?
14:51:44 [DanC]
EricP: doesn't the grammar make that clear? I guess there isn't a strong statement about the connection to the grammar... would that help?
14:52:01 [DanC]
FredZ: indeed! that's been my main point
14:52:25 [kendallclark]
i.e., asking that they be made more explicit
14:52:47 [DanC]
EricP: recall the A OPT B C OPT D thing... [?]
14:53:09 [DanC]
(EricP and FredZ discuss at a rate that exceeds the scribe's capacity)
14:54:29 [kendallclark]
I'm prepared to make a new issue, evalOrder, to track this bit... I think it's may be more than editorial.
14:54:30 [DanC]
PatH: the optional thing could be phrased more directly, [...], without "otherwise"
14:55:04 [kendallclark]
zakim, mute me
14:55:04 [Zakim]
Kendall_Clark should now be muted
14:55:25 [kendallclark]
zakim, unmute me
14:55:25 [Zakim]
Kendall_Clark should no longer be muted
14:57:11 [DanC]
PatH: seems to me that the basic graph match semantics are attached to GraphPattern, which includes FILTERs...
14:57:25 [DanC]
Jeen: how about just expanding the scope of blank nodes to the whole query?
14:57:47 [DanC]
FredZ: that would be intuitive; it's a question of defining Basic Graph Pattern matching so that it works...
14:58:42 [DanC]
FredZ: I'd prefer to introduce Existential quantifiers so that the user can say what the scope is.
14:58:54 [DanC]
PatH: I take the spec to say that {}s do that now.
14:59:33 [DanC]
FredZ: OPTIONAL always has {}s around the 2nd arg... so it's different? [?]
14:59:37 [DanC]
PatH: yes.
14:59:53 [DanC]
FredZ: users are going to find that a little wierd...
15:00:11 [DanC]
PatH: yes, users who aren't familiar with blank nodes are going to find them wierd...
15:00:35 [DanC]
FredZ: the problem is that the RDF Primer explains blank nodes as a solution to the problem that not everything is a binary relation...
15:00:49 [kendallclark]
FredZ does a perfectly good impression of TimBL's argument for Turtleization of our syntax! :)
15:01:18 [DanC]
... so [something about copy/paste and OPTIONAL and something breaking, a very interesting case that I hope Fred or somebody will capture in email]
15:04:03 [DanC]
FredZ: in SPARQL, ?var is like a forall in FOPC and _:var is like exists FOPC... it would make sense to make the quantification scope explicit
15:04:11 [DanC]
PatH: it's explicit enough for me with the {}s
15:04:37 [DanC]
EricP: [something about SQL]... I don't see how SPARQL has existentials...
15:05:09 [jeen]
Zakim, mute me
15:05:09 [Zakim]
Jeen should now be muted
15:05:09 [DanC]
PatH: a query is like a negated formula, so existentials act like existentials
15:05:37 [DanC]
FredZ: I don't see the negation...
15:05:52 [DanC]
PatH: well, that's a simplification... the query is on the point end... KB =?=> Query
15:06:53 [jeen]
Zakim, unmute me
15:06:53 [Zakim]
Jeen should no longer be muted
15:07:03 [DanC]
FredZ: entialment is |=? why do we prefer that to |- ?
15:07:26 [DanC]
PatH: |= is logical entialment, |- is provability; semantic vs syntactic...
15:07:42 [DanC]
PatH: |= vs |- isn't the main thing; the main thing is just plain old scoping
15:07:44 [DanC]
q+
15:07:59 [DanC]
FredZ: I think having explicit existential quantifiers would help
15:08:55 [DanC]
EricP: FredZ, I'm not clear on what you're after; if there was just one scope for blank nodes...
15:08:55 [FredZ]
select ?x where { (exists _:a) ?x <v> _:a OPTIONAL { _:a <v1> <b> }}
15:09:19 [ericP]
apologies for not respecting the queue
15:10:13 [DanC]
DanC: I don't like having multiple scopes for blanknodes; I understand this came from the rdfSemantics issue, when I was trying not to think to hard about what I liked and what I didn't like
15:10:42 [kendallclark]
I don't like that the people who seem to be thinking really hard and deeply about this stuff don't agree!
15:11:18 [DanC]
PatH: I think the language currently has the expressiveness you're asking for, without that syntax, Fred
15:11:26 [kendallclark]
I'm not entirely sure that many of these semantic issues matter; deciding one way or the other is often a coin toss. What's especially troubling is that we don't seem to have a document that reduces the choices sufficiently clearly enough. :<
15:11:54 [patH]
fwiw, scoping bound variables is one of the very few things that Alonzo Church got wrong in print.
15:12:48 [kendallclark]
DanC: What's the cost of just making one scope for blank node identifiers?
15:12:52 [DanC]
PatH: I don't think there's one best solution... every design has something that looks broken...
15:13:02 [kendallclark]
PatH: Seem to recall that it broke some folks intuitions in some cases.
15:13:09 [kendallclark]
zakim, mute me
15:13:09 [Zakim]
Kendall_Clark should now be muted
15:13:52 [ericP]
ASK { GRAPH <x> { ?a ?b _:a } GRAPH <y> { ?x ?y _:a }
15:13:58 [ericP]
}
15:14:43 [DanC]
what's complicated about that, ericP? there are other cases where it's implementation-dependent whether parsing a file twice yields disjoint bnodes or not
15:14:56 [LeeF]
I've found the current bnode scoping to be very convenient when writing code that generates SPARQL queries - clearly not a first-rate argument in favor, but just a datapoint.
15:15:59 [patH]
lee, that means you know what hte curent scoping is, right?
15:16:33 [kendallclark]
zakim, unmute me
15:16:33 [Zakim]
Kendall_Clark should no longer be muted
15:16:45 [LeeF]
Yes, I know what the current scoping is.
15:16:49 [LeeF]
At least, I'm pretty sure I know =)
15:16:52 [jeen]
according to the spec it's the BGP. See section 2.8.3, first line. right?
15:17:27 [LeeF]
That's been my take on it.
15:17:33 [jeen]
...and according to section 2.5.4 the filter does not 'split' the bgp. I think I'm lost about what the issue is ;)
15:18:11 [DanC]
KC: so yes, let's turn these test case sketches into test cases and collect some data about how implementors have interpreted the spec
15:18:31 [patH]
2.8.3 first line says scoped to the *query*, not BGP.
15:18:38 [DanC]
ACTION EricP: turn FredZ's test case sketches into tests. http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-dawg/2006AprJun/0171.html
15:19:11 [jeen]
ah. I was looking the editor's draft patH
15:19:38 [jeen]
my mistake
15:19:39 [patH]
Ah, yes, I am behind current curve, thanks.
15:19:58 [patH]
No, mine. Lets us use the absolutley most recent draft.
15:20:19 [kendallclark]
zakim, next agendum?
15:20:19 [Zakim]
I don't understand your question, kendallclark.
15:20:20 [kendallclark]
zakim, next agendum
15:20:20 [Zakim]
agendum 3. "optionals" taken up [from kendallclark]
15:20:28 [kendallclark]
zakim, close agendum 3
15:20:28 [Zakim]
agendum 3, optionals, closed
15:20:29 [Zakim]
I see 1 item remaining on the agenda:
15:20:30 [Zakim]
4. punctuationSyntax [from kendallclark]
15:20:36 [DanC]
ACTION: EliasT to turn C2.38 in PFPS's message into a test case [CONTINUES]
15:20:50 [DanC]
(Elias might have done his part, but we haven't look at it)
15:21:14 [DanC]
ACTION: KendallClark to reopen punctuationSyntax to take up commas in SELECT clause. [CONTINUES]
15:21:23 [FredZ]
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-dawg/2006AprJun/0176.html
15:21:38 [DanC]
Zakim, take up item optionals
15:21:38 [Zakim]
agendum 3. "optionals" taken up [from kendallclark]
15:21:51 [DanC]
-> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-dawg/2006AprJun/0176.html # formal semantics of OPT operator Fred Zemke (Friday, 23 June)
15:22:08 [LeeF]
Elias says he did do his action and sent an email about it
15:23:12 [DanC]
FredZ: I wrote a proposal for semantics of OPTIONAL; Andy pointed out that it didn't handle a case; indeed, he's right. 0176 is my reply at that point
15:24:09 [DanC]
Fred: oops; typo in point 1; "S solves B, and there exists a restriction of B that solves A." [scribe not sure he got that]
15:24:56 [EliasT]
EliasT has joined #dawg
15:26:44 [DanC]
KC: I think Andy is working on edits in this area
15:27:23 [DanC]
FredZ: so the editor doesn't always wait for a WG decision?
15:27:48 [DanC]
KC: right; sometimes the WG makes a decision based on a proposal from the editor
15:29:40 [kendallclark]
I think we have significant schedule problems, actually. :<
15:29:41 [DanC]
FredZ: hmm... schedule concerns... I'm less available in September
15:31:39 [DanC]
KC: acknowledged.
15:31:59 [kendallclark]
PROPOSED to ADJOURN
15:32:19 [Zakim]
-FredZ
15:32:21 [Zakim]
-Jeen
15:32:21 [Zakim]
-PatH
15:32:24 [DanC]
RRSAgent, list actions
15:32:24 [RRSAgent]
I see 4 open action items saved in http://www.w3.org/2006/06/27-dawg-actions.rdf :
15:32:24 [RRSAgent]
ACTION: FredZ to write an email w/ a test for the test suite re: { P1 } UNION { P2 } OPTIONAL { P3 } [DONE] [1]
15:32:24 [RRSAgent]
recorded in http://www.w3.org/2006/06/27-dawg-irc#T14-39-20
15:32:24 [RRSAgent]
ACTION: EricP to turn FredZ's test case sketches into tests. http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-dawg/2006AprJun/0171.html [2]
15:32:24 [RRSAgent]
recorded in http://www.w3.org/2006/06/27-dawg-irc#T15-18-38
15:32:24 [RRSAgent]
ACTION: EliasT to turn C2.38 in PFPS's message into a test case [CONTINUES] [3]
15:32:24 [RRSAgent]
recorded in http://www.w3.org/2006/06/27-dawg-irc#T15-20-36
15:32:24 [RRSAgent]
ACTION: KendallClark to reopen punctuationSyntax to take up commas in SELECT clause. [CONTINUES] [4]
15:32:24 [RRSAgent]
recorded in http://www.w3.org/2006/06/27-dawg-irc#T15-21-14
15:33:05 [DanC]
ACTION: DanC to review PFPS's comments for more test cases [CONTINUES]
15:34:31 [DanC]
ACTION: EliasT to respond to Mark Baker's comments re: MIME type as we just resolved [DONE]
15:34:48 [DanC]
ACTION: take up new issue concatenated nestedOptional [CONTINUES]
15:38:03 [SteveH]
SteveH has joined #dawg
15:40:30 [Zakim]
-Kendall_Clark
15:40:31 [Zakim]
-DanC
15:40:54 [EliasT]
EliasT has joined #dawg
15:57:34 [DanC]
RRSAgent, make logs world-access
15:57:46 [DanC]
RRSAgent, draft minutes
15:57:46 [RRSAgent]
I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2006/06/27-dawg-minutes.html DanC
15:58:17 [DanC]
Meeting: DAWG/SPARQL weekly
15:58:26 [DanC]
Chair: KC
15:58:38 [DanC]
Zakim, list attendees
15:58:38 [Zakim]
As of this point the attendees have been Kendall_Clark, DanC, PatH, +33.8.72.56.aaaa, FredZ, EricP, Jeen
15:58:43 [DanC]
RRSAgent, draft minutes
15:58:43 [RRSAgent]
I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2006/06/27-dawg-minutes.html DanC
15:59:18 [DanC]
Regrets+ LeeF
16:09:14 [DanC]
RRSAgent, bye
16:09:14 [RRSAgent]
I see 7 open action items saved in http://www.w3.org/2006/06/27-dawg-actions.rdf :
16:09:14 [RRSAgent]
ACTION: FredZ to write an email w/ a test for the test suite re: { P1 } UNION { P2 } OPTIONAL { P3 } [DONE] [1]
16:09:14 [RRSAgent]
recorded in http://www.w3.org/2006/06/27-dawg-irc#T14-39-20
16:09:14 [RRSAgent]
ACTION: EricP to turn FredZ's test case sketches into tests. http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-dawg/2006AprJun/0171.html [2]
16:09:14 [RRSAgent]
recorded in http://www.w3.org/2006/06/27-dawg-irc#T15-18-38
16:09:14 [RRSAgent]
ACTION: EliasT to turn C2.38 in PFPS's message into a test case [CONTINUES] [3]
16:09:14 [RRSAgent]
recorded in http://www.w3.org/2006/06/27-dawg-irc#T15-20-36
16:09:14 [RRSAgent]
ACTION: KendallClark to reopen punctuationSyntax to take up commas in SELECT clause. [CONTINUES] [4]
16:09:14 [RRSAgent]
recorded in http://www.w3.org/2006/06/27-dawg-irc#T15-21-14
16:09:14 [RRSAgent]
ACTION: DanC to review PFPS's comments for more test cases [CONTINUES] [5]
16:09:14 [RRSAgent]
recorded in http://www.w3.org/2006/06/27-dawg-irc#T15-33-05
16:09:14 [RRSAgent]
ACTION: EliasT to respond to Mark Baker's comments re: MIME type as we just resolved [DONE] [6]
16:09:14 [RRSAgent]
recorded in http://www.w3.org/2006/06/27-dawg-irc#T15-34-31
16:09:14 [RRSAgent]
ACTION: take up new issue concatenated nestedOptional [CONTINUES] [7]
16:09:14 [RRSAgent]
recorded in http://www.w3.org/2006/06/27-dawg-irc#T15-34-48
16:09:23 [DanC]
Zakim, bye
16:09:23 [Zakim]
leaving. As of this point the attendees were Kendall_Clark, DanC, PatH, +33.8.72.56.aaaa, FredZ, EricP, Jeen
16:09:23 [Zakim]
Zakim has left #dawg