IRC log of dawg on 2006-08-15

Timestamps are in UTC.

14:16:06 [RRSAgent]: RRSAgent has joined #dawg
14:16:06 [RRSAgent]: logging to http://www.w3.org/2006/08/15-dawg-irc
14:16:07 [AndyS]: No - as I described before - the role of that table becomes the imple of value-compare for the well-known types.
14:16:09 [Zakim]: Zakim has joined #dawg
14:16:16 [kendallclark]: zakim, this is dawg
14:16:16 [Zakim]: kendallclark, I see SW_DAWG()10:30AM in the schedule but not yet started. Perhaps you mean "this will be dawg".
14:16:27 [kendallclark]: zakim, this will be dawg
14:16:27 [Zakim]: ok, kendallclark; I see SW_DAWG()10:30AM scheduled to start in 14 minutes
14:16:34 [kendallclark]: uppity robot
14:16:37 [ericP]: zakim, i see DAWG on the horizon
14:16:37 [Zakim]: I don't understand 'i see DAWG on the horizon', ericP
14:16:50 [kendallclark]: eric: any idea why my urls keep breaking in agenda emails?
14:17:02 [kendallclark]: i composed it with a text editor and there were *no* \n in the url strings...
14:17:07 [kendallclark]: very annoying :)
14:17:13 [ericP]: line wrapping? what's your email client?
14:17:19 [kendallclark]: mail.app
14:17:34 [kendallclark]: the osx mailer
14:17:50 [ericP]: huh, sounds like one a dem new-fangled fancy mailers
14:17:59 [AndyS]: line length got miss-set to be too short?
14:18:07 [kendallclark]: well, it's not pine or mutt or VM, true enough
14:18:25 [kendallclark]: i don't think there is a line-length preference i can fiddle, alas
14:18:43 [AndyS]: Who else uses same thing?
14:18:43 [ericP]: yeah, but it's odd that mail.app enforces line.length (whatever that is) rather than trusting $EDITOR
14:18:46 [bijan]: me
14:18:54 [bijan]: I don't think it does
14:19:04 [kendallclark]: yeah, i kinda suspect the archiver actually
14:19:06 [AndyS]: and you have no probs with a URL on one line.
14:19:07 [kendallclark]: not mail.app
14:19:46 [AndyS]: W3C does not reform emails IIRC (might do into the archive) and I get them broken direct.
14:19:50 [LeeF]: LeeF has joined #dawg
14:19:54 [kendallclark]: eh, i guess i'll send from something else next time to see if it works
14:20:10 [AndyS]: Try sending me one direct and we cn see if its OK.
14:20:40 [SimonR]: Will it be all right for me to dial in to listen in on this meeting, or shall I just follow the IRC stream?
14:21:22 [kendallclark]: simon: i have no objections to yr dialing in
14:21:38 [kendallclark]: i will ask if anyone else does, but i'd be surprised :)
14:21:49 [bijan]: Dial in!
14:21:53 [bijan]: Feel free
14:22:25 [ericP]: you can talk; you just can't listen -- no reason you should have an advantage over the rest of us
14:22:31 [bijan]: what?
14:22:33 [kendallclark]: heh
14:22:34 [bijan]: Eh?
14:22:36 [kendallclark]: that's pretty funny
14:22:41 [bijan]: What'dyasay, sonny?
14:22:56 [bijan]: You using one o' those newfangled "vocal cords" thingys?
14:23:25 [kendallclark]: i was gonna dial up today w/ my new cell phone; but one of my kittens chewed the ear piece in about 5 pieces yesterday, the little minx
14:24:04 [ericP]: minx today, soup tomorrow
14:24:23 [LeeF]: the downside of technology's advances in the "edible electronics" field, I suppose.
14:24:28 [kendallclark]: zakim, agenda+ 1. Convene [1]RDF Data Access WG meeting of Tuesday, 15 August, 2006 at 14:30:00 UTC
14:24:28 [Zakim]: agendum 1 added
14:24:45 [kendallclark]: zakim, agenda+ 2. Tracking Action Items
14:24:45 [Zakim]: agendum 2 added
14:25:21 [kendallclark]: zakim, agenda+ 3. DISTINCT Underspecified
14:25:21 [Zakim]: agendum 3 added
14:25:30 [kendallclark]: zakim, agenda+ 4. Value testing and D-Entailment
14:25:30 [Zakim]: agendum 4 added
14:25:41 [kendallclark]: zakim, agenda+ 5. Entailment & RDF
14:25:41 [Zakim]: agendum 5 added
14:25:50 [kendallclark]: zakim, agenda+ 6. Approve new value tests
14:25:50 [Zakim]: agendum 6 added
14:26:01 [kendallclark]: zakim, agenda+ Summary of LeeF's review of rq24
14:26:01 [Zakim]: agendum 7 added
14:26:26 [AndyS]: http://kittenwar.com/
14:27:09 [kendallclark]: damn, full agenda. this is like work, or something.
14:27:11 [kendallclark]: depressing!
14:27:23 [bijan]: Argh
14:27:38 [kendallclark]: eric: does #6 have any chance? I mean, are we closer to being able to vote on them?
14:28:01 [Zakim]: SW_DAWG()10:30AM has now started
14:28:08 [Zakim]: +??P7
14:28:09 [Zakim]: +??P6
14:28:12 [AndyS]: zakim, ??P7 is AndyS
14:28:12 [Zakim]: +AndyS; got it
14:28:21 [SimonR]: I think I'm P6.
14:28:23 [kendallclark]: he's UMan's rep now, as far as I know
14:28:32 [bijan]: I hsould be
14:28:42 [AndyS]: I was first according to the announcement
14:28:59 [bijan]: It's going to be a few minutes before I'm in. Zakim is fighting me. :(
14:29:06 [Zakim]: +[IBMCambridge]
14:29:11 [LeeF]: Zakim, IBMCambridge is me
14:29:11 [Zakim]: +LeeF; got it
14:29:32 [kendallclark]: my cell acting the fool...
14:29:38 [kendallclark]: eric: does #6 have any chance? I mean, are we closer to being able to vote on them?
14:29:45 [ericP]: bijan, i'm seeing the same prob
14:29:58 [kendallclark]: erp, never mind
14:30:05 [Zakim]: +Kendall_Clark
14:30:14 [kendallclark]: zakim, who's on the phone?
14:30:14 [Zakim]: On the phone I see AndyS, ??P6, LeeF, Kendall_Clark
14:30:21 [ericP]: kendallclark, i'd like to discuss it anyways
14:30:21 [kendallclark]: zakim, ??P6 is SimonR
14:30:21 [Zakim]: +SimonR; got it
14:30:24 [bijan]: Well, I'm getting nice wacky new problems now :)
14:30:26 [Zakim]: +FredZ
14:30:40 [kendallclark]: Chair needs a scribe... Anyone willing?
14:31:00 [Zakim]: +??P9
14:31:08 [ericP]: zakim, ??P9 is ericP
14:31:08 [Zakim]: +ericP; got it
14:31:27 [FredZ]: FredZ has joined #dawg
14:31:43 [bijan]: Sigh
14:32:11 [kendallclark]: bijan: did you see Lee's note? he just put the passcode in and it worked, bridge was quiet
14:32:18 [bijan]: That's not my problem
14:32:24 [bijan]: The passcode gets rejected
14:32:32 [bijan]: This happens on ws-policy too
14:32:33 [kendallclark]: what are you using?
14:32:35 [LeeF]: i'vehad that problem in the past
14:32:36 [kendallclark]: ah
14:32:39 [bijan]: Yeah
14:32:42 [bijan]: It seems random
14:32:46 [bijan]: I'm skyping
14:32:50 [LeeF]: was a problem with my phone once, and one time dialling in about 12 times fixed it :-/
14:32:55 [kendallclark]: can you try the operator?
14:32:56 [bijan]: Yeap
14:33:02 [bijan]: I did but got nothing
14:33:04 [ericP]: bijan, i had to dial again to get a line that was more reliably passing DTMF (i think)
14:33:05 [bijan]: I'll just keep trying
14:33:23 [kendallclark]: Is Jeen still trying?
14:33:32 [bijan]: Sigh
14:33:33 [kendallclark]: zakim, mute me
14:33:33 [Zakim]: Kendall_Clark should now be muted
14:33:35 [jeen]: yeah, simila problems as bijan
14:34:09 [kendallclark]: zakim, unmute me
14:34:09 [Zakim]: Kendall_Clark should no longer be muted
14:34:10 [jeen]: ...and can't switch to normal phone since international calls go through our operator and no-one is answering there at the mo'... urgh.
14:34:22 [kendallclark]: ok, well, you guys keep trying, we have to start
14:34:34 [RalphS]: RalphS has joined #dawg
14:34:42 [kendallclark]: zakim, who's on the phone?
14:34:42 [Zakim]: On the phone I see AndyS, SimonR, LeeF, Kendall_Clark, FredZ, ericP
14:34:43 [Zakim]: +[IPcaller]
14:34:49 [jeen]: incredible!
14:34:55 [bijan]: That shoudl be me!
14:34:56 [kendallclark]: zakim, +[IPcaller] is Jeen
14:34:56 [Zakim]: sorry, kendallclark, I do not recognize a party named '+[IPcaller]'
14:35:06 [LeeF]: zakim, IPCAller is jeen
14:35:06 [Zakim]: +jeen; got it
14:35:14 [bijan]: zakim, IPcaller should be me!
14:35:14 [Zakim]: I don't understand 'IPcaller should be me!', bijan
14:35:26 [kendallclark]: zakim, please pick a scribe
14:35:26 [Zakim]: Not knowing who is chairing or who scribed recently, I propose jeen
14:35:32 [bijan]: I have to restart :(
14:35:40 [bijan]: skype, that is
14:35:44 [kendallclark]: scribe: Jeen
14:36:11 [kendallclark]: zakim, take up first agendum
14:36:11 [Zakim]: I don't understand 'take up first agendum', kendallclark
14:36:12 [ericP]: bijan, this is a frequent prob with skype. it's kinda week for signalling
14:36:19 [kendallclark]: zakim, take up agendum #1
14:36:19 [Zakim]: '#1' does not match any agenda item, kendallclark
14:36:22 [kendallclark]: zakim, take up agendum 1
14:36:22 [Zakim]: agendum 1. "1. Convene [1]RDF Data Access WG meeting of Tuesday, 15 August, 2006 at 14:30:00 UTC" taken up [from kendallclark]
14:36:39 [Zakim]: +[IPcaller]
14:36:46 [bijan]: zakim, ipcaller is me
14:36:46 [Zakim]: +bijan; got it
14:36:53 [bijan]: zakim, mute me
14:36:53 [Zakim]: bijan should now be muted
14:36:54 [kendallclark]: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-dawg/2006JulSep/0103.html
14:37:05 [bijan]: zakim, make me suavely articulate
14:37:05 [Zakim]: I don't understand 'make me suavely articulate', bijan
14:38:53 [jeen]: andys comments that the agenda is rather long; kendall agrees
14:38:58 [kendallclark]: zakim, who's on the phone?
14:38:58 [Zakim]: On the phone I see AndyS, SimonR, LeeF, Kendall_Clark, FredZ, ericP, jeen, bijan (muted)
14:39:11 [RalphS]: RalphS has left #dawg
14:39:24 [kendallclark]: http://www.w3.org/2006/08/08-dawg-minutes
14:40:06 [Zakim]: +[IBMCambridge]
14:40:14 [LeeF]: Zakim, ibmcambridge is EliasT
14:40:14 [Zakim]: +EliasT; got it
14:40:31 [SimonR]: Discussion of correction to minutes: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-dawg/2006JulSep/0113.html
14:41:35 [kendallclark]: zakim, take up agenda 3
14:41:35 [Zakim]: agendum 3. "3. DISTINCT Underspecified" taken up [from kendallclark]
14:41:50 [kendallclark]: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-dawg/2006JulSep/0092.html
14:42:00 [bijan]: zakim, unmute me
14:42:00 [Zakim]: bijan should no longer be muted
14:42:24 [EliasT]: EliasT has joined #dawg
14:43:14 [jeen]: bijan: specification definitely needs tightening
14:43:17 [jeen]: andys: agree
14:45:15 [bijan]: ?x?y
14:45:15 [bijan]: _:x:mochi
14:45:15 [bijan]: :Bijan:mochi
14:46:01 [jeen]: bijan: andys thinks that this is a possible correct answer for a distinct query, I do not
14:46:03 [LeeF]: bijan: are you saying that you read DISTINCT as NOT-REDUNDANT ?
14:46:11 [LeeF]: yes
14:46:18 [LeeF]: s/bijan:/bijan,
14:46:21 [LeeF]: thanks
14:46:34 [bijan]: :bijan :loves :mochi
14:46:44 [bijan]: _:x :hates :mochi
14:47:00 [EliasT]: :elias :loves :mochi
14:47:04 [kendallclark]: I despise it.
14:47:27 [EliasT]: :kendallclark :hates :mochi
14:47:54 [kendallclark]: zakim, mute me
14:47:54 [Zakim]: Kendall_Clark should now be muted
14:48:22 [kendallclark]: zakim, unmute me
14:48:22 [Zakim]: Kendall_Clark should no longer be muted
14:48:45 [kendallclark]: a discussion in where?
14:49:11 [jeen]: andys: we had a discussion with enrico about this earlier, and we agreed that DISTINCT meant term-distinct, not non-redundant
14:49:21 [kendallclark]: ah, 'with enrico'
14:49:32 [ericP]: q+ to say that I've been modeling everything based on SPARQL query symbols (no logical entailment necessary)
14:50:26 [kendallclark]: ack ericP
14:50:26 [Zakim]: ericP, you wanted to say that I've been modeling everything based on SPARQL query symbols (no logical entailment necessary)
14:50:30 [jeen]: bijan: think making leanness available is important
14:51:49 [jeen]: ericP: i've been doing all this based purely on symbols, not on entailment
14:53:58 [SimonR]: If we choose not to treat bnodes as existentials, are we basically choosing not to use RDF Semantics...?
14:54:03 [bijan]: Yes
14:54:08 [bijan]: IMHO
14:54:19 [SimonR]: I agree, and I'm rather alarmed by that.
14:54:34 [kendallclark]: At the very least, it's a problem that I have to take to SWCG, I believe.
14:54:49 [ericP]: q+ to suggest that bijan has proposed a keyword that lets andy and bijan agree on at least one form of redundancy
14:55:43 [jeen]: andys: I don't understand why this is affected by rdf semantics, because we are talking about a result set here, not a graph
14:56:36 [jeen]: bijan: it depends on how see the relation with entailment, and also there is a possible issue when looking at CONSTRUCT
14:58:43 [jeen]: bijan volunteers for an action item on this
14:58:50 [kendallclark]: ack ericP
14:58:50 [Zakim]: ericP, you wanted to suggest that bijan has proposed a keyword that lets andy and bijan agree on at least one form of redundancy
14:59:53 [jeen]: ericP: bijan mentioned "DISTINCT" vs. "LEAN" as two keywords
15:03:06 [SimonR]: My take would be this: whatever form of entailment you are currently using, a solution which is entailed by another solution may be eliminated from the solution set without loss of information. Only the order of co-entailed solutions is arbitrary in that case, I think.
15:03:21 [SimonR]: Order of elimination, rather.
15:03:23 [bijan]: ACTION: bijan to show that the "strong" version of DISTNCT doesn't interfere with intermittent algebraic operations
15:05:53 [AndyS]: bijan, could you also describe the reduction algorithm as well? I think I know what it is informally but it would be good to see it formally. And that can go in the doc.
15:06:26 [bijan]: AndyS, yes, that's in the plan
15:06:40 [kendallclark]: bijan: let's add another action for that, please
15:06:46 [AndyS]: Cool
15:08:48 [AndyS]: q+ to talk about the range of use cases (a difference between AndyS and Bijan)
15:09:25 [jeen]: kendall: the utility of the tool is one consideration, but another consideration is (PR if you will) respecting RDF semantics
15:10:08 [jeen]: ericP: analogy is an XQuery engine that respects xml:ID
15:10:10 [kendallclark]: ACTION Bijan: to describe reduction algorithm
15:10:55 [bijan]: q+
15:11:07 [kendallclark]: ack AndyS
15:11:07 [Zakim]: AndyS, you wanted to talk about the range of use cases (a difference between AndyS and Bijan)
15:12:04 [jeen]: AndyS: I think that we have a spec that allows writing queries that respect RDF semantics, but some things are a bit outside that
15:12:11 [jeen]: (did I get that right?)
15:13:02 [kendallclark]: zakim, mute me
15:13:02 [Zakim]: Kendall_Clark should now be muted
15:13:05 [kendallclark]: q+ bijan
15:13:25 [kendallclark]: zakim, unmute me
15:13:25 [Zakim]: Kendall_Clark should no longer be muted
15:13:54 [kendallclark]: q+ to wrap this up
15:14:03 [kendallclark]: ack bijan
15:14:11 [SimonR]: Treating the bnode identifiers like names rather than existentials basically would mean they we're choosing a...drat, what the name for? In logic, where you have a model by interpreting the symbols back to themselves...it's named about someone.
15:14:27 [SimonR]: about/after
15:15:00 [jeen]: bijan: we are chartered in the light of existing specs, so we have to make _very_ clear that are compliant or, if we deviate, where exactly.
15:16:46 [SimonR]: Herbrand model, that's what I was thinking of....
15:17:38 [jeen]: kendall: it's not currently clearly marked where we depart from rdf semantics, so that is at least a possible and useful thing to do
15:18:54 [bijan]: I would work on an appendix detailing the differences
15:20:44 [jeen]: AndyS: I understand and appreciate bijan's concerns with distinct, but what I would like to see is support from other people on the issue
15:20:55 [kendallclark]: zakim, who's on the phone?
15:20:55 [Zakim]: On the phone I see AndyS, SimonR, LeeF, Kendall_Clark, FredZ, ericP, jeen, bijan, EliasT
15:21:16 [kendallclark]: Question: Is respecting RDF semantics w/r/t DISTINCT important to your organization?
15:22:42 [jeen]: SimonR: i think we should base our semantics on rdf, bnodes are existential variables there and that should be reflected
15:23:41 [jeen]: LeeF: if it turns out that the choice is between RDF semantics or not, then we should respect. I can see use cases for both ways of distinct though.
15:24:04 [jeen]: FredZ: I don't know the opinion of my organization
15:24:23 [jeen]: FredZ: still forming my own opinion on the issue
15:24:54 [jeen]: ericP: in favor of keeping simple. (symbol based)
15:26:04 [jeen]: jeen: agrees with ericP mostly
15:26:13 [ericP]: oh weak, just remembered my other point: i wanted to say that saddle could express higher level semantics
15:26:40 [jeen]: jeen: needs to form a more thorough opinion on the issue though
15:27:27 [jeen]: EliasT: what Lee said
15:27:43 [jeen]: AndyS: I am not so worried about redundant solutions, it doesn't violate rdf semantics
15:28:24 [LeeF]: EliasT: I also want what is simplest for the user of SPARQL, which might be seeingonly lean result sets
15:28:46 [jeen]: bijan: there are a number of points where we need alignment. both forms of distinct are useful. if we are going to sacrifice one of them we need to be very clear
15:29:10 [jeen]: bijan: i could go either way, as long as we're very clear
15:29:59 [EliasT]: EliasT: I think simple distinct as ericP defines it, it's fine because one could post-process to get a lean answer. But I'd rather SPARQL have LEAN and DISTINCT.
15:30:12 [bijan]: Well, that's what people disagree :)
15:30:14 [bijan]: er
15:30:15 [bijan]: on
15:30:21 [SimonR]: The particular interpretation's ability to infer extra statements is directly related to the ability to determine whether solutions are equal. Similarly to the way we leave it up the engine to choose to infer extra statements, it's the enginer rather than the query which can prove that solutions are redundant.
15:31:05 [bijan]: zakim, mute me
15:31:05 [Zakim]: bijan should now be muted
15:32:38 [bijan]: zakim, unmute me
15:32:38 [Zakim]: bijan should no longer be muted
15:33:01 [kendallclark]: zakim, take up next agendum
15:33:01 [Zakim]: agendum 1. "1. Convene [1]RDF Data Access WG meeting of Tuesday, 15 August, 2006 at 14:30:00 UTC" taken up [from kendallclark]
15:33:10 [kendallclark]: zakim, close agendum 1
15:33:10 [Zakim]: agendum 1, 1. Convene [1]RDF Data Access WG meeting of Tuesday, 15 August, 2006 at 14:30:00 UTC, closed
15:33:12 [kendallclark]: zakim, close agendum 2
15:33:12 [Zakim]: I see 5 items remaining on the agenda; the next one is
15:33:13 [Zakim]: 2. 2. Tracking Action Items [from kendallclark]
15:33:14 [Zakim]: agendum 2, 2. Tracking Action Items, closed
15:33:15 [Zakim]: I see 4 items remaining on the agenda; the next one is
15:33:16 [Zakim]: 4. 4. Value testing and D-Entailment [from kendallclark]
15:33:20 [kendallclark]: zakim, close agendum 3
15:33:20 [Zakim]: agendum 3, 3. DISTINCT Underspecified, closed
15:33:21 [Zakim]: I see 4 items remaining on the agenda; the next one is
15:33:22 [Zakim]: 4. 4. Value testing and D-Entailment [from kendallclark]
15:33:27 [kendallclark]: zakim, take up next agendum
15:33:27 [Zakim]: agendum 4. "4. Value testing and D-Entailment" taken up [from kendallclark]
15:35:48 [jeen]: AndyS: i propose "if the graph matching does entailment then distinct does as well, v.v."
15:36:06 [SimonR]: What kinds of equalities do we have? In simple entailment, we have syntactic equality by name. In D-entailment, we might have additional equalities from the datatype processor. In OWL, we have explicit statements of equality. Any others?
15:36:42 [kendallclark]: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-dawg/2006JulSep/0095.html
15:36:49 [bijan]: There are entailed equalities in OWL
15:37:09 [bijan]: And tehre are entailed inequalities wrt the various XSD types in RDF +D-entailment
15:37:51 [jeen]: bijan: there is some question about how to understand literals with lexical types that do not correspond to the datatype
15:40:15 [Zakim]: +PatH
15:40:16 [jeen]: ericP: my approach is that we do not expect tools to handle this
15:41:33 [Zakim]: -EliasT
15:44:31 [jeen]: bijan: it is underspecified, and there are choices that can be made. I do not find ericP's apparent choice unreasonable per se. but we need to explore the options and clarify at least
15:45:03 [jeen]: bijan: also have concerns about some of the options being outside our charter
15:45:23 [jeen]: bijan: (but I don't know for sure if that is the case)
15:47:03 [AndyS]: Testcases.
15:48:24 [jeen]: andys: does this discussion apply to all operators?
15:48:27 [jeen]: bijan: yes
15:52:32 [Zakim]: -jeen
15:52:56 [kendallclark]: PatH: sounds like a use/mention issue
15:53:14 [jeen]: jeen has joined #dawg
15:53:30 [kendallclark]: zakim, mute me
15:53:30 [Zakim]: Kendall_Clark should now be muted
15:54:30 [kendallclark]: (sorry, UPS at the door)
15:54:36 [kendallclark]: jeen: i'm trying to take over
15:54:46 [kendallclark]: zakim, unmute me
15:54:46 [Zakim]: Kendall_Clark should no longer be muted
15:58:38 [Zakim]: +[IPcaller]
15:58:46 [kendallclark]: zakim, please pick a scribe
15:58:46 [Zakim]: Not knowing who is chairing or who scribed recently, I propose bijan
15:58:47 [jeen]: Zakim, [IPcaller] is me
15:58:47 [Zakim]: +jeen; got it
15:59:00 [kendallclark]: zakim, please pick a scribe.
15:59:00 [Zakim]: Not knowing who is chairing or who scribed recently, I propose ericP
15:59:18 [kendallclark]: zakim, please pick a scribe.
15:59:19 [Zakim]: Not knowing who is chairing or who scribed recently, I propose jeen
15:59:21 [kendallclark]: zakim, please pick a scribe.
15:59:22 [Zakim]: Not knowing who is chairing or who scribed recently, I propose jeen
15:59:24 [kendallclark]: zakim, please pick a scribe.
15:59:24 [Zakim]: Not knowing who is chairing or who scribed recently, I propose FredZ
15:59:40 [kendallclark]: zakim, please pick a scribe.
15:59:40 [Zakim]: Not knowing who is chairing or who scribed recently, I propose PatH
16:00:10 [kendallclark]: PROPOSED to meet 22 Aug 14:30 UTC, with PatH scribing
16:00:33 [kendallclark]: PROPOSED to adjourn
16:00:40 [Zakim]: -FredZ
16:00:41 [Zakim]: -bijan
16:00:56 [kendallclark]: DONE: ACTION: EricP to redraft section 11 to support extensible datatypes [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2006/08/08-dawg-minutes.html#action08]
16:01:05 [jeen]: there is some irc bot wizardry involved in publishing the log and creating the minutes right? can someone help me out?
16:01:15 [kendallclark]: ACTION: EricP to redraft section 11 to support extensible datatypes [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2006/08/08-dawg-minutes.html#action08]
16:01:17 [Zakim]: -PatH
16:01:19 [kendallclark]: DONE
16:01:55 [kendallclark]: [PENDING] ACTION: LeeF to To review rq24. [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2006/08/08-dawg-minutes.html#action04]
16:01:59 [kendallclark]: DONE
16:02:16 [kendallclark]: [PENDING] ACTION: DanC to review PFPS's comments for more test cases [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2006/08/08-dawg-minutes.html#action06]
16:02:19 [kendallclark]: PENDING
16:02:23 [kendallclark]: CONTINUED
16:02:25 [Zakim]: -LeeF
16:02:26 [Zakim]: -ericP
16:02:47 [kendallclark]: [PENDING] ACTION: EricP to turn FredZ's test case sketches into tests. [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2006/08/08-dawg-minutes.html#action07]
16:02:50 [kendallclark]: DONE
16:03:34 [kendallclark]: zakim, please make minutes world readable
16:03:34 [Zakim]: I don't understand 'please make minutes world readable', kendallclark
16:03:45 [kendallclark]: rrsagent, please make minutes world readable
16:03:45 [RRSAgent]: I'm logging. I don't understand 'please make minutes world readable', kendallclark. Try /msg RRSAgent help
16:04:08 [Zakim]: -jeen
16:04:29 [jeen]: http://mmm.idiap.ch/mlmi04/MLMI-Talk-016/slides/slide10-0.html
16:04:43 [jeen]: kendall: that link contains something which looks relevant to publishing minutes
16:05:08 [Zakim]: -AndyS
16:05:12 [kendallclark]: ah, thanks
16:05:21 [ericP]: RRSAgent, plese draft minutes
16:05:21 [RRSAgent]: I'm logging. I don't understand 'plese draft minutes', ericP. Try /msg RRSAgent help
16:05:26 [ericP]: RRSAgent, please draft minutes
16:05:26 [RRSAgent]: I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2006/08/15-dawg-minutes.html ericP
16:05:32 [ericP]: good bot
16:05:36 [kendallclark]: thanks, eric
16:06:19 [Zakim]: -Kendall_Clark
16:06:20 [Zakim]: -SimonR
16:06:22 [Zakim]: SW_DAWG()10:30AM has ended
16:06:24 [Zakim]: Attendees were AndyS, LeeF, Kendall_Clark, SimonR, FredZ, ericP, jeen, bijan, EliasT, PatH
16:07:05 [SimonR]: Wow, and I thought there mightn't be anything left to do by the time I got back. O_o
16:10:00 [AndyS]: Kendall: does the 3 month pub rule apply to DAWG in CR?
16:12:22 [bijan]: AndyS, I don't think so
16:12:32 [bijan]: At least, I've not seen it on the WSDL list
16:12:39 [bijan]: And we've been in CR forever
16:12:52 [bijan]: I gues "they've" been in CR forever
16:14:45 [AndyS]: Well - that's good to know (practice trumps) because when I checked that rule was independent of the state of the WG so I was unclear. And also unclear as to whether the JSON-thibgy would count as its a Note.
16:14:59 [bijan]: I would think that it woudl count
16:15:07 [bijan]: Notes count
16:15:13 [bijan]: I mean or SWBP would have a real problem :)
16:15:52 [AndyS]: "for all REC track by SWBP, publish every 3 months"
16:17:39 [bijan]: Oops, I'm wrong
16:17:40 [bijan]: As an example, suppose a Working Group has one technical report as a deliverable, which it publishes as a Proposed Recommendation. Per the heartbeat requirement, the Working Group is required to publish a new draft of the Proposed Recommendation at least every three months, even if it is only to revise the status of the Proposed Recommendation document (e.g., to provide an update on the status of the decision to advance). The heartbeat requirement stops when
16:17:40 [bijan]: the document becomes a Recommendation (or a Working Group Note).
16:17:53 [bijan]: So, yes, we need to update the CR document with new status line every three months
16:19:01 [bijan]: An actual note is in an 'end-state' thus doesn't need updating (and can't be, actually, it would seem0
16:25:25 [AndyS]: AndyS has left #dawg
16:28:54 [SimonR]: I wonder if the very idea of an algebra requires avery proposition to be true or false. You wouldn't really have a properly decidable notion of closure without that, and I'm not sure how much sense algebra makes without that.
16:30:46 [SimonR]: I just wonder whether the relational algebra approach to SPARQL is fundamentally vexed by the lack of CWA.
16:33:50 [bijan]: i don't think it does, SimomR
16:34:11 [bijan]: And for the latter, well, i also don't think so
16:34:15 [bijan]: You just have to be careful :)
16:34:23 [bijan]: And interpret things correctly
16:34:39 [bijan]: Lack of UNA is more severe as it takes you away from a lot of intuitive things in the DB context
16:34:47 [bijan]: E.g., makes counting nuts
16:35:31 [bijan]: And the lack of equality reasoning (or expression) just sucks
16:35:39 [SimonR]: I impression I've gotten is that CWA means you never have an upper bound on counts, and UNA means you never have a lower bound.
16:35:39 [bijan]: Though adding it is tricky
16:35:50 [bijan]: Er.
16:35:57 [bijan]: First I dont' think those go to gether
16:36:09 [bijan]: But I don't see why
16:36:13 [SimonR]: Oh, really?
16:36:21 [bijan]: CWA gives you an upperbound, the terms
16:36:41 [bijan]: If you are considering finitary models
16:36:43 [bijan]: Like in a database
16:36:50 [SimonR]: Sorry, lack of CWA. I can always have more foozles I don't know about yet.
16:36:56 [bijan]: Well, that's not true either
16:37:04 [bijan]: In owl you can fix the size of the universe
16:37:08 [bijan]: So you know the upper bound on entities
16:37:14 [bijan]: Youc an fix the size of class
16:37:16 [SimonR]: If you do it explicity, sure.
16:37:23 [bijan]: You can fix the size of successors
16:37:27 [bijan]: You can fix lots of things
16:37:29 [bijan]: ALCN
16:37:50 [bijan]: And then you can dork with what you are counting
16:38:19 [bijan]: But I mean, they aren't called counting quantifiers for nothing! :)
16:38:51 [bijan]: And I'm not sure what you mean by "explicitly" and why that woudl be a point against me :0
16:39:18 [SimonR]: Explicit as in, you have to add as an axiom the size of the class, etc.
16:39:31 [bijan]: Not really
16:39:35 [bijan]: You could size the domain
16:39:51 [bijan]: And then the size of varoius classes could be inferred
16:40:01 [bijan]: There's lot sof axioms that might do tricky stuff
16:40:13 [bijan]: It's not liek you need a A sub {1, 2, 3} scattered all over the plac
16:40:22 [bijan]: For example, you can force the domain to be infinite
16:40:45 [SimonR]: Okay, but that's still some axiom required. Before you populate your taxonomy, you'll start with an open world.
16:41:03 [bijan]: Uh
16:41:06 [bijan]: You always need axioms
16:41:17 [bijan]: I mean, they are exactly what constrain the models
16:41:40 [bijan]: So I fail to see hwo you can "never get an upper bound"
16:41:46 [bijan]: At least on answers to a query :)
16:41:49 [bijan]: Or a count
16:41:57 [bijan]: It depends on the expressivity of my logic
16:42:02 [bijan]: If I have certain expressivity I can
16:42:06 [bijan]: In a variety of ways
16:42:42 [bijan]: Now, it's certainly less common
16:42:57 [bijan]: And there are plenty of cases where you can, for example, count the entities in a class
16:42:59 [SimonR]: Oh, I see how we're at cross purposes here -- amend that to "if you don't explicitly include and axiom that limits the size of the domain, then you will never get an upper bound".
16:43:06 [SimonR]: and/an
16:43:06 [bijan]: Thats' not true either
16:43:20 [bijan]: If I have counting quantifiers I can constrain the number of successors
16:43:34 [bijan]: So I query for those successors could get an exact count
16:43:50 [bijan]: E.g., a:Max2R
16:43:54 [bijan]: a R b
16:43:57 [bijan]: a R c
16:44:00 [bijan]: b != c
16:44:29 [bijan]: I know there are exactly two R successors to a
16:44:37 [bijan]: So If I query a R ?y
16:44:39 [bijan]: Then i can count
16:45:15 [bijan]: Again, there are fewer circumstances in which I can get a count
16:45:19 [bijan]: But that doesn't mean that there are none
16:45:56 [bijan]: And if I change what I'm counting
16:46:01 [bijan]: E.g., *known* individuals
16:46:05 [bijan]: I can get counts in more cases
16:46:40 [SimonR]: What's the usual practice, do people define counts as returning (possibly semi-infinite, etc) intervals, or two functions, maxCount and minCount?
16:47:45 [bijan]: The usual practice is not to count :0
16:47:58 [bijan]: At least in conjunctive query
16:48:03 [bijan]: You can count using classes of course
16:48:16 [bijan]: And then you can use min and max to get ranges or exact
16:49:55 [bijan]: It's an interesting challenge to add more general counting (and *useful* counting)
16:50:22 [bijan]: (if you use the K operator, you are introducing a limited form of CWA, which helps you make the assumptions that make counting sensible)
16:52:39 [SimonR]: I guess the useful form would be to give the naive count and state which assumptions you're relying on to obtain it. (8 foozles to my knowledge, assuming all these names are distinct).
17:04:07 [bijan]: WEll, to allow such specifications or something, sure
17:06:19 [SimonR]: I'm trying to think have you could do that in SPARQL. I vaguely recall we had hooks in the XML result format for metadata. Maybe specifying that the solution applies to the original query evaluated again an RDF dataset with an interpretation extended with that assumptions would do it. It's quite a stretch beyond what we currently have, though.
17:07:44 [SimonR]: again+st
17:07:56 [SimonR]: that/those