14:16:06 RRSAgent has joined #dawg 14:16:06 logging to http://www.w3.org/2006/08/15-dawg-irc 14:16:07 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 has joined #dawg 14:16:16 zakim, this is dawg 14:16:16 kendallclark, I see SW_DAWG()10:30AM in the schedule but not yet started. Perhaps you mean "this will be dawg". 14:16:27 zakim, this will be dawg 14:16:27 ok, kendallclark; I see SW_DAWG()10:30AM scheduled to start in 14 minutes 14:16:34 uppity robot 14:16:37 zakim, i see DAWG on the horizon 14:16:37 I don't understand 'i see DAWG on the horizon', ericP 14:16:50 eric: any idea why my urls keep breaking in agenda emails? 14:17:02 i composed it with a text editor and there were *no* \n in the url strings... 14:17:07 very annoying :) 14:17:13 line wrapping? what's your email client? 14:17:19 mail.app 14:17:34 the osx mailer 14:17:50 huh, sounds like one a dem new-fangled fancy mailers 14:17:59 line length got miss-set to be too short? 14:18:07 well, it's not pine or mutt or VM, true enough 14:18:25 i don't think there is a line-length preference i can fiddle, alas 14:18:43 Who else uses same thing? 14:18:43 yeah, but it's odd that mail.app enforces line.length (whatever that is) rather than trusting $EDITOR 14:18:46 me 14:18:54 I don't think it does 14:19:04 yeah, i kinda suspect the archiver actually 14:19:06 and you have no probs with a URL on one line. 14:19:07 not mail.app 14:19:46 W3C does not reform emails IIRC (might do into the archive) and I get them broken direct. 14:19:50 LeeF has joined #dawg 14:19:54 eh, i guess i'll send from something else next time to see if it works 14:20:10 Try sending me one direct and we cn see if its OK. 14:20:40 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 simon: i have no objections to yr dialing in 14:21:38 i will ask if anyone else does, but i'd be surprised :) 14:21:49 Dial in! 14:21:53 Feel free 14:22:25 you can talk; you just can't listen -- no reason you should have an advantage over the rest of us 14:22:31 what? 14:22:33 heh 14:22:34 Eh? 14:22:36 that's pretty funny 14:22:41 What'dyasay, sonny? 14:22:56 You using one o' those newfangled "vocal cords" thingys? 14:23:25 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 minx today, soup tomorrow 14:24:23 the downside of technology's advances in the "edible electronics" field, I suppose. 14:24:28 zakim, agenda+ 1. Convene [1]RDF Data Access WG meeting of Tuesday, 15 August, 2006 at 14:30:00 UTC 14:24:28 agendum 1 added 14:24:45 zakim, agenda+ 2. Tracking Action Items 14:24:45 agendum 2 added 14:25:21 zakim, agenda+ 3. DISTINCT Underspecified 14:25:21 agendum 3 added 14:25:30 zakim, agenda+ 4. Value testing and D-Entailment 14:25:30 agendum 4 added 14:25:41 zakim, agenda+ 5. Entailment & RDF 14:25:41 agendum 5 added 14:25:50 zakim, agenda+ 6. Approve new value tests 14:25:50 agendum 6 added 14:26:01 zakim, agenda+ Summary of LeeF's review of rq24 14:26:01 agendum 7 added 14:26:26 http://kittenwar.com/ 14:27:09 damn, full agenda. this is like work, or something. 14:27:11 depressing! 14:27:23 Argh 14:27:38 eric: does #6 have any chance? I mean, are we closer to being able to vote on them? 14:28:01 SW_DAWG()10:30AM has now started 14:28:08 +??P7 14:28:09 +??P6 14:28:12 zakim, ??P7 is AndyS 14:28:12 +AndyS; got it 14:28:21 I think I'm P6. 14:28:23 he's UMan's rep now, as far as I know 14:28:32 I hsould be 14:28:42 I was first according to the announcement 14:28:59 It's going to be a few minutes before I'm in. Zakim is fighting me. :( 14:29:06 +[IBMCambridge] 14:29:11 Zakim, IBMCambridge is me 14:29:11 +LeeF; got it 14:29:32 my cell acting the fool... 14:29:38 eric: does #6 have any chance? I mean, are we closer to being able to vote on them? 14:29:45 bijan, i'm seeing the same prob 14:29:58 erp, never mind 14:30:05 +Kendall_Clark 14:30:14 zakim, who's on the phone? 14:30:14 On the phone I see AndyS, ??P6, LeeF, Kendall_Clark 14:30:21 kendallclark, i'd like to discuss it anyways 14:30:21 zakim, ??P6 is SimonR 14:30:21 +SimonR; got it 14:30:24 Well, I'm getting nice wacky new problems now :) 14:30:26 +FredZ 14:30:40 Chair needs a scribe... Anyone willing? 14:31:00 +??P9 14:31:08 zakim, ??P9 is ericP 14:31:08 +ericP; got it 14:31:27 FredZ has joined #dawg 14:31:43 Sigh 14:32:11 bijan: did you see Lee's note? he just put the passcode in and it worked, bridge was quiet 14:32:18 That's not my problem 14:32:24 The passcode gets rejected 14:32:32 This happens on ws-policy too 14:32:33 what are you using? 14:32:35 i'vehad that problem in the past 14:32:36 ah 14:32:39 Yeah 14:32:42 It seems random 14:32:46 I'm skyping 14:32:50 was a problem with my phone once, and one time dialling in about 12 times fixed it :-/ 14:32:55 can you try the operator? 14:32:56 Yeap 14:33:02 I did but got nothing 14:33:04 bijan, i had to dial again to get a line that was more reliably passing DTMF (i think) 14:33:05 I'll just keep trying 14:33:23 Is Jeen still trying? 14:33:32 Sigh 14:33:33 zakim, mute me 14:33:33 Kendall_Clark should now be muted 14:33:35 yeah, simila problems as bijan 14:34:09 zakim, unmute me 14:34:09 Kendall_Clark should no longer be muted 14:34:10 ...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 ok, well, you guys keep trying, we have to start 14:34:34 RalphS has joined #dawg 14:34:42 zakim, who's on the phone? 14:34:42 On the phone I see AndyS, SimonR, LeeF, Kendall_Clark, FredZ, ericP 14:34:43 +[IPcaller] 14:34:49 incredible! 14:34:55 That shoudl be me! 14:34:56 zakim, +[IPcaller] is Jeen 14:34:56 sorry, kendallclark, I do not recognize a party named '+[IPcaller]' 14:35:06 zakim, IPCAller is jeen 14:35:06 +jeen; got it 14:35:14 zakim, IPcaller should be me! 14:35:14 I don't understand 'IPcaller should be me!', bijan 14:35:26 zakim, please pick a scribe 14:35:26 Not knowing who is chairing or who scribed recently, I propose jeen 14:35:32 I have to restart :( 14:35:40 skype, that is 14:35:44 scribe: Jeen 14:36:11 zakim, take up first agendum 14:36:11 I don't understand 'take up first agendum', kendallclark 14:36:12 bijan, this is a frequent prob with skype. it's kinda week for signalling 14:36:19 zakim, take up agendum #1 14:36:19 '#1' does not match any agenda item, kendallclark 14:36:22 zakim, take up agendum 1 14:36:22 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 +[IPcaller] 14:36:46 zakim, ipcaller is me 14:36:46 +bijan; got it 14:36:53 zakim, mute me 14:36:53 bijan should now be muted 14:36:54 http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-dawg/2006JulSep/0103.html 14:37:05 zakim, make me suavely articulate 14:37:05 I don't understand 'make me suavely articulate', bijan 14:38:53 andys comments that the agenda is rather long; kendall agrees 14:38:58 zakim, who's on the phone? 14:38:58 On the phone I see AndyS, SimonR, LeeF, Kendall_Clark, FredZ, ericP, jeen, bijan (muted) 14:39:11 RalphS has left #dawg 14:39:24 http://www.w3.org/2006/08/08-dawg-minutes 14:40:06 +[IBMCambridge] 14:40:14 Zakim, ibmcambridge is EliasT 14:40:14 +EliasT; got it 14:40:31 Discussion of correction to minutes: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-dawg/2006JulSep/0113.html 14:41:35 zakim, take up agenda 3 14:41:35 agendum 3. "3. DISTINCT Underspecified" taken up [from kendallclark] 14:41:50 http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-dawg/2006JulSep/0092.html 14:42:00 zakim, unmute me 14:42:00 bijan should no longer be muted 14:42:24 EliasT has joined #dawg 14:43:14 bijan: specification definitely needs tightening 14:43:17 andys: agree 14:45:15 ?x ?y 14:45:15 _:x :mochi 14:45:15 :Bijan :mochi 14:46:01 bijan: andys thinks that this is a possible correct answer for a distinct query, I do not 14:46:03 bijan: are you saying that you read DISTINCT as NOT-REDUNDANT ? 14:46:11 yes 14:46:18 s/bijan:/bijan, 14:46:21 thanks 14:46:34 :bijan :loves :mochi 14:46:44 _:x :hates :mochi 14:47:00 :elias :loves :mochi 14:47:04 I despise it. 14:47:27 :kendallclark :hates :mochi 14:47:54 zakim, mute me 14:47:54 Kendall_Clark should now be muted 14:48:22 zakim, unmute me 14:48:22 Kendall_Clark should no longer be muted 14:48:45 a discussion in where? 14:49:11 andys: we had a discussion with enrico about this earlier, and we agreed that DISTINCT meant term-distinct, not non-redundant 14:49:21 ah, 'with enrico' 14:49:32 q+ to say that I've been modeling everything based on SPARQL query symbols (no logical entailment necessary) 14:50:26 ack ericP 14:50:26 ericP, you wanted to say that I've been modeling everything based on SPARQL query symbols (no logical entailment necessary) 14:50:30 bijan: think making leanness available is important 14:51:49 ericP: i've been doing all this based purely on symbols, not on entailment 14:53:58 If we choose not to treat bnodes as existentials, are we basically choosing not to use RDF Semantics...? 14:54:03 Yes 14:54:08 IMHO 14:54:19 I agree, and I'm rather alarmed by that. 14:54:34 At the very least, it's a problem that I have to take to SWCG, I believe. 14:54:49 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 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 bijan: it depends on how see the relation with entailment, and also there is a possible issue when looking at CONSTRUCT 14:58:43 bijan volunteers for an action item on this 14:58:50 ack ericP 14:58:50 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 ericP: bijan mentioned "DISTINCT" vs. "LEAN" as two keywords 15:03:06 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 Order of elimination, rather. 15:03:23 ACTION: bijan to show that the "strong" version of DISTNCT doesn't interfere with intermittent algebraic operations 15:05:53 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 AndyS, yes, that's in the plan 15:06:40 bijan: let's add another action for that, please 15:06:46 Cool 15:08:48 q+ to talk about the range of use cases (a difference between AndyS and Bijan) 15:09:25 kendall: the utility of the tool is one consideration, but another consideration is (PR if you will) respecting RDF semantics 15:10:08 ericP: analogy is an XQuery engine that respects xml:ID 15:10:10 ACTION Bijan: to describe reduction algorithm 15:10:55 q+ 15:11:07 ack AndyS 15:11:07 AndyS, you wanted to talk about the range of use cases (a difference between AndyS and Bijan) 15:12:04 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 (did I get that right?) 15:13:02 zakim, mute me 15:13:02 Kendall_Clark should now be muted 15:13:05 q+ bijan 15:13:25 zakim, unmute me 15:13:25 Kendall_Clark should no longer be muted 15:13:54 q+ to wrap this up 15:14:03 ack bijan 15:14:11 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 about/after 15:15:00 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 Herbrand model, that's what I was thinking of.... 15:17:38 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 I would work on an appendix detailing the differences 15:20:44 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 zakim, who's on the phone? 15:20:55 On the phone I see AndyS, SimonR, LeeF, Kendall_Clark, FredZ, ericP, jeen, bijan, EliasT 15:21:16 Question: Is respecting RDF semantics w/r/t DISTINCT important to your organization? 15:22:42 SimonR: i think we should base our semantics on rdf, bnodes are existential variables there and that should be reflected 15:23:41 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 FredZ: I don't know the opinion of my organization 15:24:23 FredZ: still forming my own opinion on the issue 15:24:54 ericP: in favor of keeping simple. (symbol based) 15:26:04 jeen: agrees with ericP mostly 15:26:13 oh weak, just remembered my other point: i wanted to say that saddle could express higher level semantics 15:26:40 jeen: needs to form a more thorough opinion on the issue though 15:27:27 EliasT: what Lee said 15:27:43 AndyS: I am not so worried about redundant solutions, it doesn't violate rdf semantics 15:28:24 EliasT: I also want what is simplest for the user of SPARQL, which might be seeingonly lean result sets 15:28:46 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 bijan: i could go either way, as long as we're very clear 15:29:59 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 Well, that's what people disagree :) 15:30:14 er 15:30:15 on 15:30:21 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 zakim, mute me 15:31:05 bijan should now be muted 15:32:38 zakim, unmute me 15:32:38 bijan should no longer be muted 15:33:01 zakim, take up next agendum 15:33:01 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 zakim, close agendum 1 15:33:10 agendum 1, 1. Convene [1]RDF Data Access WG meeting of Tuesday, 15 August, 2006 at 14:30:00 UTC, closed 15:33:12 zakim, close agendum 2 15:33:12 I see 5 items remaining on the agenda; the next one is 15:33:13 2. 2. Tracking Action Items [from kendallclark] 15:33:14 agendum 2, 2. Tracking Action Items, closed 15:33:15 I see 4 items remaining on the agenda; the next one is 15:33:16 4. 4. Value testing and D-Entailment [from kendallclark] 15:33:20 zakim, close agendum 3 15:33:20 agendum 3, 3. DISTINCT Underspecified, closed 15:33:21 I see 4 items remaining on the agenda; the next one is 15:33:22 4. 4. Value testing and D-Entailment [from kendallclark] 15:33:27 zakim, take up next agendum 15:33:27 agendum 4. "4. Value testing and D-Entailment" taken up [from kendallclark] 15:35:48 AndyS: i propose "if the graph matching does entailment then distinct does as well, v.v." 15:36:06 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 http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-dawg/2006JulSep/0095.html 15:36:49 There are entailed equalities in OWL 15:37:09 And tehre are entailed inequalities wrt the various XSD types in RDF +D-entailment 15:37:51 bijan: there is some question about how to understand literals with lexical types that do not correspond to the datatype 15:40:15 +PatH 15:40:16 ericP: my approach is that we do not expect tools to handle this 15:41:33 -EliasT 15:44:31 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 bijan: also have concerns about some of the options being outside our charter 15:45:23 bijan: (but I don't know for sure if that is the case) 15:47:03 Testcases. 15:48:24 andys: does this discussion apply to all operators? 15:48:27 bijan: yes 15:52:32 -jeen 15:52:56 PatH: sounds like a use/mention issue 15:53:14 jeen has joined #dawg 15:53:30 zakim, mute me 15:53:30 Kendall_Clark should now be muted 15:54:30 (sorry, UPS at the door) 15:54:36 jeen: i'm trying to take over 15:54:46 zakim, unmute me 15:54:46 Kendall_Clark should no longer be muted 15:58:38 +[IPcaller] 15:58:46 zakim, please pick a scribe 15:58:46 Not knowing who is chairing or who scribed recently, I propose bijan 15:58:47 Zakim, [IPcaller] is me 15:58:47 +jeen; got it 15:59:00 zakim, please pick a scribe. 15:59:00 Not knowing who is chairing or who scribed recently, I propose ericP 15:59:18 zakim, please pick a scribe. 15:59:19 Not knowing who is chairing or who scribed recently, I propose jeen 15:59:21 zakim, please pick a scribe. 15:59:22 Not knowing who is chairing or who scribed recently, I propose jeen 15:59:24 zakim, please pick a scribe. 15:59:24 Not knowing who is chairing or who scribed recently, I propose FredZ 15:59:40 zakim, please pick a scribe. 15:59:40 Not knowing who is chairing or who scribed recently, I propose PatH 16:00:10 PROPOSED to meet 22 Aug 14:30 UTC, with PatH scribing 16:00:33 PROPOSED to adjourn 16:00:40 -FredZ 16:00:56 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 there is some irc bot wizardry involved in publishing the log and creating the minutes right? can someone help me out? 16:01:15 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 -PatH 16:01:19 DONE 16:01:55 [PENDING] ACTION: LeeF to To review rq24. [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2006/08/08-dawg-minutes.html#action04] 16:01:59 DONE 16:02:16 [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 PENDING 16:02:23 CONTINUED 16:02:25 -LeeF 16:02:26 -ericP 16:02:47 [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 DONE 16:03:34 zakim, please make minutes world readable 16:03:34 I don't understand 'please make minutes world readable', kendallclark 16:03:45 rrsagent, please make minutes world readable 16:03:45 I'm logging. I don't understand 'please make minutes world readable', kendallclark. Try /msg RRSAgent help 16:04:08 -jeen 16:04:29 http://mmm.idiap.ch/mlmi04/MLMI-Talk-016/slides/slide10-0.html 16:04:43 kendall: that link contains something which looks relevant to publishing minutes 16:05:08 -AndyS 16:05:12 ah, thanks 16:05:21 RRSAgent, plese draft minutes 16:05:21 I'm logging. I don't understand 'plese draft minutes', ericP. Try /msg RRSAgent help 16:05:26 RRSAgent, please draft minutes 16:05:26 I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2006/08/15-dawg-minutes.html ericP 16:05:32 good bot 16:05:36 thanks, eric 16:06:19 -Kendall_Clark 16:06:20 -SimonR 16:06:22 SW_DAWG()10:30AM has ended 16:06:24 Attendees were AndyS, LeeF, Kendall_Clark, SimonR, FredZ, ericP, jeen, bijan, EliasT, PatH 16:07:05 Wow, and I thought there mightn't be anything left to do by the time I got back. O_o 16:10:00 Kendall: does the 3 month pub rule apply to DAWG in CR? 16:12:22 AndyS, I don't think so 16:12:32 At least, I've not seen it on the WSDL list 16:12:39 And we've been in CR forever 16:12:52 I gues "they've" been in CR forever 16:14:45 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 I would think that it woudl count 16:15:07 Notes count 16:15:13 I mean or SWBP would have a real problem :) 16:15:52 "for all REC track by SWBP, publish every 3 months" 16:17:39 Oops, I'm wrong 16:17:40 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 the document becomes a Recommendation (or a Working Group Note). 16:17:53 So, yes, we need to update the CR document with new status line every three months 16:19:01 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 has left #dawg 16:28:54 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 I just wonder whether the relational algebra approach to SPARQL is fundamentally vexed by the lack of CWA. 16:33:50 i don't think it does, SimomR 16:34:11 And for the latter, well, i also don't think so 16:34:15 You just have to be careful :) 16:34:23 And interpret things correctly 16:34:39 Lack of UNA is more severe as it takes you away from a lot of intuitive things in the DB context 16:34:47 E.g., makes counting nuts 16:35:31 And the lack of equality reasoning (or expression) just sucks 16:35:39 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 Though adding it is tricky 16:35:50 Er. 16:35:57 First I dont' think those go to gether 16:36:09 But I don't see why 16:36:13 Oh, really? 16:36:21 CWA gives you an upperbound, the terms 16:36:41 If you are considering finitary models 16:36:43 Like in a database 16:36:50 Sorry, lack of CWA. I can always have more foozles I don't know about yet. 16:36:56 Well, that's not true either 16:37:04 In owl you can fix the size of the universe 16:37:08 So you know the upper bound on entities 16:37:14 Youc an fix the size of class 16:37:16 If you do it explicity, sure. 16:37:23 You can fix the size of successors 16:37:27 You can fix lots of things 16:37:29 ALCN 16:37:50 And then you can dork with what you are counting 16:38:19 But I mean, they aren't called counting quantifiers for nothing! :) 16:38:51