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