IRC log of dawg on 2006-08-01

Timestamps are in UTC.

14:28:41 [RRSAgent]

RRSAgent has joined #dawg

14:28:41 [RRSAgent]

logging to http://www.w3.org/2006/08/01-dawg-irc

14:29:57 [AndyS]

zakim, who is on the phone?

14:29:57 [Zakim]

sorry, AndyS, I don't know what conference this is

14:29:58 [Zakim]

On IRC I see RRSAgent, Zakim, LeeF, AndyS, kendallclark, EliasT, SteveH, afs, ericP

14:30:07 [LeeF]

zakim, this is DAWG

14:30:07 [Zakim]

ok, LeeF; that matches SW_DAWG()10:30AM

14:30:09 [kendallclark]

zakim, this is DAWG

14:30:09 [Zakim]

kendallclark, this was already SW_DAWG()10:30AM

14:30:10 [Zakim]

ok, kendallclark; that matches SW_DAWG()10:30AM

14:30:12 [LeeF]

zakim, what's the phone number?

14:30:12 [Zakim]

I don't understand your question, LeeF.

14:30:19 [AndyS]

zakim, who is on the phone?

14:30:19 [Zakim]

On the phone I see Kendall_Clark, ??P2

14:30:21 [LeeF]

zakim, please tell me the phone number

14:30:22 [Zakim]

I don't understand 'please tell me the phone number', LeeF

14:30:30 [LeeF]

zakim, I know that you know the phone number. You're just being stubborn.

14:30:30 [Zakim]

I don't understand you, LeeF

14:30:31 [kendallclark]

??P2 is AndyS

14:30:31 [AndyS]

zakim, ??P2 is me

14:30:31 [Zakim]

+AndyS; got it

14:31:11 [Zakim]

+ +1.650.372.aaaa

14:31:23 [Zakim]

+[IBMCambridge]

14:31:28 [LeeF]

zakim, IBMCambridge is LeeF

14:31:30 [Zakim]

+LeeF; got it

14:31:30 [kendallclark]

zakim, aaa is FredZ

14:31:32 [Zakim]

sorry, kendallclark, I do not recognize a party named 'aaa'

14:31:35 [kendallclark]

zakim, aaaa is FredZ

14:31:35 [Zakim]

+FredZ; got it

14:31:59 [Zakim]

+[IBMCambridge]

14:32:03 [EliasT]

Zakim, IBMCambridge is me

14:32:03 [Zakim]

+EliasT; got it

14:33:41 [EliasT]

Zakim, who's on the phone?

14:33:41 [Zakim]

On the phone I see Kendall_Clark, AndyS, FredZ, LeeF, EliasT

14:33:53 [kendallclark]

zakim, pick a scribe

14:33:53 [Zakim]

Not knowing who is chairing or who scribed recently, I propose LeeF

14:34:10 [kendallclark]

Chair: kendallclark

14:34:13 [kendallclark]

Scribe: LeeF

14:34:37 [EliasT]

Scribe: EliasT

14:35:13 [Zakim]

+??P6

14:35:14 [EliasT]

Title: DAWG Weekly Meeting

14:35:25 [patH]

patH has joined #dawg

14:37:47 [kendallclark]

zakim, agenda+ Convene [1]RDF Data Access WG meeting of Tuesday, 1 August, 2006

14:37:47 [Zakim]

agendum 1 added

14:37:55 [LeeF]

Regrets: steve, libby, jeen

14:37:57 [kendallclark]

zakim, agenda+ Action Items

14:37:57 [Zakim]

agendum 2 added

14:38:05 [kendallclark]

zakim, agenda+ rq24

14:38:05 [Zakim]

agendum 3 added

14:38:13 [kendallclark]

zakim, agenda+ CR Exit Discussion

14:38:13 [Zakim]

agendum 4 added

14:38:33 [kendallclark]

zakim, agenda+ extendedType-ne-fail

14:38:33 [Zakim]

agendum 5 added

14:38:47 [kendallclark]

zakim, agenda+ Formal Semantics

14:38:47 [Zakim]

agendum 6 added

14:38:55 [kendallclark]

zakim, take up agendum 1

14:38:55 [Zakim]

agendum 1. "Convene [1]RDF Data Access WG meeting of Tuesday, 1 August, 2006" taken up [from kendallclark]

14:39:17 [EliasT]

yes

14:39:31 [kendallclark]

http://www.w3.org/2006/06/27-dawg-minutes

14:39:41 [Zakim]

+PatH

14:40:05 [fred]

fred has joined #dawg

14:40:15 [EliasT]

AndyS: seconds

14:40:57 [EliasT]

Next Meeting: Aug 08 2006

14:41:01 [kendallclark]

zakim, take up next agendum

14:41:01 [Zakim]

agendum 2. "Action Items" taken up [from kendallclark]

14:41:24 [LeeF]

ACTION: LeeF to make a test case out of the nested GRAPH scenario from DAWG email list

14:41:45 [ericP]

ACTION: EricP to turn FredZ's test case sketches into tests. http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-dawg/2006AprJun/0171.html CONTINUED

14:42:45 [EliasT]

yes

14:42:54 [ericP]

ACTION: DanC to review PFPS's comments for more test cases CONTINUED

14:42:54 [LeeF]

he doesn't have a speaker phone

14:43:27 [ericP]

ACTION: EliasT to turn C2.38 in PFPS's message into a test case DONE

14:43:32 [ericP]

action -4

14:43:51 [ericP]

ACTION: KendallClark to reopen punctuationSyntax to take up commas in SELECT clause.CONTINUED

14:44:10 [ericP]

ACTION: take up new issue concatenated nestedOptional CONTINUED

14:44:34 [AndyS]

http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/DataAccess/issues

14:45:42 [EliasT]

FredZ: how does someone raise an issue to the issues list

14:46:11 [EliasT]

kendallclark: It's mostly up to the chair. I have re-opened two issues already in the past.

14:46:28 [EliasT]

... some issues get raised to be postponed for future iterations of the spec.

14:47:15 [EliasT]

... issues can be sent to the mailing list and turned into testcases.

14:49:29 [kendallclark]

zakim, take up next agendum

14:49:29 [Zakim]

agendum 3. "rq24" taken up [from kendallclark]

14:50:59 [kendallclark]

zakim, mute me

14:50:59 [Zakim]

Kendall_Clark should now be muted

14:51:00 [EliasT]

kendallclark: Could AndyS give us major structural changes to the fork to rq23?

14:51:19 [kendallclark]

zakim, unmute me

14:51:19 [Zakim]

Kendall_Clark should no longer be muted

14:51:28 [kendallclark]

http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/DataAccess/rq23/rq24.html

14:51:37 [kendallclark]

in the agenda too :>

14:52:23 [kendallclark]

zakim, unmute me

14:52:23 [Zakim]

Kendall_Clark was not muted, kendallclark

14:52:27 [EliasT]

AndyS: It's mostly editorial. It has an explicit section to making simple queries as introductional material. Later a section on syntax issues. Section 4 definitions and then BGP. A little bit of renumbering. Mostly to give a better idea of what's tutorialish vs. specification.

14:52:41 [EliasT]

... I collapse the three data sections but mostly for balance.

14:53:11 [EliasT]

... Grammar section was reorganized based on an outstanding message (codepoint escape sequences)

14:53:13 [kendallclark]

fwiw, the formal definition extraction stuff is broken :>

14:53:58 [EliasT]

AndyS: I haven't touched the definitions and/or the grammer.

14:54:57 [EliasT]

kendallclark: Summarizing. Changes were mostly editorial to turn it into more specificational rather than tutorial.

14:55:12 [kendallclark]

hmm, no, tha'ts not what I meant to say :)

14:55:14 [kendallclark]

or what Andy said

14:55:30 [kendallclark]

he more clearly distinguishes between exemplary and specificational stuff

14:55:31 [EliasT]

AndyS: ericP had suggested to making a single graph of the example in section, but I haven't gotten around to it.

14:56:01 [kendallclark]

:>

14:56:34 [EliasT]

fred: ericP suggested fred should reword his comments against rq24.

14:56:39 [EliasT]

kendallclark: no opinion

14:57:46 [EliasT]

kendallclark: I would like us to move to more specificational rather than exemplary. Maybe even a separate document.

14:58:29 [EliasT]

... I believe the audience we are targeting doesn't need the exemplary version. They probably need a more formal one.

14:59:33 [EliasT]

... If rq24 distinguishes clearer between exemplary and specificational, I'd like it better.

15:01:43 [EliasT]

kendallclark: Would you (LeeF) would like to write our primer?

15:02:18 [AndyS]

we do have the definitions extraction script - we could make that more explicit.

15:05:26 [EliasT]

AndyS: We could work on making the extracted document better from definitions. We have had feedback that the audience likes both: definitions and discursive text.

15:05:48 [EliasT]

... we have the ability to extract a definitions only document.

15:06:31 [EliasT]

kendallclark: would we need a more explict structure: like primer section, etc.

15:06:55 [EliasT]

AndyS: keeping two documents in sync (primer/spec) is relatively hard.

15:07:19 [EliasT]

patH: AndyS's comments are backed up by real examples such as OWL.

15:07:37 [ericP]

i'm interesting in hearing PatH's specific experiences in OWL

15:07:46 [EliasT]

AndyS: two sets of people read each document and inconsistencies never get pointed out.

15:08:16 [LeeF]

Do the definitions give a fully coherent formal specification of SPARQL? I think probably not...

15:08:29 [kendallclark]

We have feedback that they don't, I believe.

15:09:30 [EliasT]

patH: SPARQL spec style is a bit weird. We need both a good amount of text and definitions.

15:10:29 [EliasT]

fred: I'd like more distinction between definitions and examples. I would like to suggest a new section on transformation from grammar to mathematical engine.

15:11:28 [EliasT]

kendallclark: Andy, do you think we reached the point where parts of the document (via CSS) are normative and other not?

15:12:19 [EliasT]

AndyS: My current suggestion would be to extract a def-only document.

15:12:54 [EliasT]

kendallclark: Could the script also extract the normative part of the spec as part of the separate document?

15:13:20 [EliasT]

... besides the definitions.

15:14:28 [EliasT]

AndyS: I think we are probably very close to that.

15:16:49 [EliasT]

AndyS: I will go through the document trying to markup what text is normative and should go along with the definitions.

15:20:50 [EliasT]

patH: A compromise could be to add a header that says "Example" used over and over again

15:22:08 [EliasT]

Zakim, mute me

15:22:08 [Zakim]

EliasT should now be muted

15:22:08 [kendallclark]

ACTION LeeF: To review rq24.

15:22:55 [kendallclark]

zakim, take up next agendum

15:22:55 [Zakim]

agendum 4. "CR Exit Discussion" taken up [from kendallclark]

15:23:36 [EliasT]

Zakim, unmute me

15:23:36 [Zakim]

EliasT should no longer be muted

15:25:15 [ericP]

LeeF, if you are thinking about how to mechanically (perhaps XSLT) separate rq24 into tutorial and normative, i can geek with you a bit

15:26:16 [LeeF]

thanks, ericP -- will probably review it first and note structural feedbacks at a non-markup level first, and then think about mechanical separation -- at which point I will be sure to bug you relentlessly :-)

15:26:20 [EliasT]

kendallclark: we need to have some meetings to get rid of old tests

15:26:54 [EliasT]

LeeF: I've been starting to jot down a whole bunch of tests that are either old or unncessary. I'll contribute that as needed.

15:28:37 [kendallclark]

zakim, take up next agendum

15:28:37 [Zakim]

agendum 5. "extendedType-ne-fail" taken up [from kendallclark]

15:29:44 [EliasT]

LeeF: the test is correct and the spec needs changing, but the spec change is substantial and needs review from the WG.

15:30:09 [kendallclark]

http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-dawg/2006JulSep/0024.html

15:30:11 [LeeF]

-> http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/DataAccess/tests/#extendedtype-ne-fail

15:31:18 [EliasT]

LeeF: it should fail

15:31:27 [EliasT]

ericP: By fail do you mean fail or skip that solution?

15:31:53 [EliasT]

fred: filter will not pass anything that errors.

15:33:12 [EliasT]

AndyS: I thought we decided that if the impl added understanding of new types it could answer correctly.

15:33:50 [EliasT]

ericP: The problem we have is that = for RDFTerms is the same as for strings.

15:34:06 [EliasT]

... sometimes you can pass the test, but with new information you could fail the test.

15:35:04 [kendallclark]

Open world tests for datatypes from Andy: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-dawg/2006AprJun/0104.html

15:36:16 [kendallclark]

yes, it is :)

15:36:24 [EliasT]

Chair: kendallclark

15:36:41 [AndyS]

90mins?

15:37:07 [EliasT]

sorry

15:37:26 [patH]

you wish, elias

15:38:14 [kendallclark]

http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-dawg/2006AprJun/0104.html

15:41:27 [ericP]

-> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-dawg/2006AprJun/0052 last time we discussed termEquals

15:43:08 [AndyS]

I'm happy to turn a description into a concrete test in the test suite.

15:47:10 [EliasT]

... the new = syntax from AndyS.

15:47:53 [kendallclark]

||

15:47:59 [AndyS]

|| is a special form.

15:50:14 [EliasT]

what was the outcome of FILTER("foo" = "foo"^^xsd:string)?

15:50:36 [AndyS]

True. Same value.

15:51:16 [kendallclark]

ACTION PatH: To write another open world value test to add to Andy's.

15:52:12 [kendallclark]

ACTION EricP: to respond to PatH's new test with supplemental info

15:52:58 [AndyS]

FILTER (datatype(?x)=xsd:string)

15:53:32 [kendallclark]

zakim, take up next agendum

15:53:32 [Zakim]

agendum 6. "Formal Semantics" taken up [from kendallclark]

15:53:45 [ericP]

ACTION EricP: to respond to PatH's new test with a proof of whether it's monotonic

15:54:15 [ericP]

ACTION EricP: to respond to PatH's new test with a proof of whether it's monotonic to extended datatype support

15:54:21 [ericP]

action -9

15:54:22 [ericP]

action -10

15:55:18 [Zakim]

-FredZ

15:55:19 [Zakim]

-Kendall_Clark

15:55:21 [Zakim]

-PatH

15:55:22 [EliasT]

RRSAgen, please draft minutes

15:55:26 [EliasT]

RRSAgent, please draft minutes

15:55:26 [RRSAgent]

I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2006/08/01-dawg-minutes.html EliasT

15:55:43 [Zakim]

-LeeF

15:57:50 [AndyS]

zakim, who is on the phone?

15:57:50 [Zakim]

On the phone I see AndyS, EliasT, ericP

15:59:50 [EliasT]

ericP?

15:59:57 [EliasT]

help me with the bots?

16:00:19 [LeeF]

RRSAgent, make logs world readable

16:00:19 [RRSAgent]

I'm logging. I don't understand 'make logs world readable', LeeF. Try /msg RRSAgent help

16:00:35 [EliasT]

RRSAgent, make logs world access

16:00:35 [RRSAgent]

I'm logging. I don't understand 'make logs world access', EliasT. Try /msg RRSAgent help

16:00:49 [LeeF]

RRSAgent, make logs world-readable

16:00:50 [EliasT]

RRSAgent, silence