14:28:45 <RRSAgent> RRSAgent has joined #dawg
14:28:45 <RRSAgent> logging to http://www.w3.org/2006/10/10-dawg-irc
14:28:48 <LeeF> zakim, this will be dawg
14:28:48 <Zakim> ok, LeeF, I see SW_DAWG()10:30AM already started
14:28:52 <bijan> no million pounds in my pocket
14:28:57 <Zakim> -PatH
14:28:58 <Zakim> SW_DAWG()10:30AM has ended
14:28:59 <Zakim> Attendees were PatH
14:29:00 <bijan> Damn, works for andy but not for me :(
14:29:04 <LeeF> zakim, this will be dawg
14:29:04 <Zakim> ok, LeeF; I see SW_DAWG()10:30AM scheduled to start in 1 minute
14:29:17 <Zakim> SW_DAWG()10:30AM has now started
14:29:24 <Zakim> +??P1
14:29:27 <AndyS> zakim, ??P1 is AndyS
14:29:28 <Zakim> +AndyS; got it
14:29:33 <Zakim> +PatH
14:29:41 <Zakim> +??P8
14:29:57 <Zakim> +Lee_Feigenbaum
14:30:01 <ericP> zakim, ??P8 is me
14:30:01 <Zakim> +ericP; got it
14:30:04 <LeeF> zakim, Lee_Feigenbaum is me
14:30:04 <Zakim> +LeeF; got it
14:30:07 <AndyS> Bijan - maybe - don't type the access code to early.
14:30:13 <Zakim> +??P13
14:30:14 <bijan> I never do
14:30:15 <LeeF> Meeting: RDF Data Access
14:30:18 <LeeF> Chair: PatH
14:30:21 <LeeF> Scribe: LeeF
14:30:24 <SimonR> Zakim, ??P13 is me
14:30:24 <Zakim> +SimonR; got it
14:30:26 <bijan> Now it just hung up on me for no reason :P)
14:30:34 <ericP> zakim, ??P1 is SteveH
14:30:34 <Zakim> I already had ??P1 as AndyS, ericP
14:30:36 <LeeF> Regrets: SteveH, kendallclark
14:30:50 <bijan> today, it's not going to the second bit. How weird
14:30:50 <ericP> Zakim, who is here?
14:30:50 <Zakim> On the phone I see AndyS, PatH, ericP, LeeF, SimonR
14:30:51 <Zakim> On IRC I see RRSAgent, Zakim, patH, AndyS, LeeF, SimonR, bijan, jeen, afs, SteveH, ericP
14:31:25 <Zakim> +[IPcaller]
14:31:35 <bijan> zakim, ipcaller is me
14:31:35 <Zakim> +bijan; got it
14:31:39 <bijan> zakim, mute me
14:31:39 <Zakim> bijan should now be muted
14:32:17 <SimonR> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-dawg/2006OctDec/0030.html
14:32:23 <LeeF> Agenda: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-dawg/2006OctDec/0030.html
14:32:43 <ericP> agenda+ Action Items
14:32:43 <ericP> agenda+ Continue discussion of scope of FILTERs
14:32:43 <ericP> agenda+ Is there an issue with NAF & !BOUND?
14:32:43 <ericP> agenda+ SolutionModifier
14:32:43 <ericP> agenda+ Continue discussion on open world and other value tests
14:32:48 <bijan> zakim, unmute me
14:32:50 <Zakim> bijan should no longer be muted
14:33:17 <bijan> zakim,mute me
14:33:17 <Zakim> bijan should now be muted
14:34:24 <SimonR> SimonR volunteers to scribe at the next meeting.  (Oct 17?)
14:34:29 <LeeF> Next meeting October 17, Simon R to scribe 
14:35:00 <bijan> zakim, unmute me
14:35:00 <Zakim> bijan should no longer be muted
14:35:08 <AndyS> Minutes 3/Oct: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-dawg/2006OctDec/0018.html
14:35:20 <ericP> ACTION: Bijan review rq24 against http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-dawg-comments/2006Jun/0008
14:35:23 <LeeF> PROPOSED approve minutes http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-dawg/2006OctDec/0018.html
14:35:24 <ericP> DONE
14:35:24 <bijan> zakim, mute me
14:35:24 <Zakim> bijan should now be muted
14:35:25 <LeeF> RESOLVED
14:35:28 <ericP> action -1
14:35:34 <ericP> ACTION: AndyS to edit text for DISTINCT = term-distinct
14:35:36 <ericP> DONE
14:35:39 <bijan> zakim, unmute me
14:35:39 <Zakim> bijan should no longer be muted
14:35:39 <ericP> action -2
14:35:42 <AndyS> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-dawg/2006OctDec/0047.html
14:35:59 <ericP> ACTION: Bijan to propose text regarding normalization (massaging in general) while reading graphs in
14:36:05 <SimonR> Zakim, who is on the phone?
14:36:05 <Zakim> On the phone I see AndyS, PatH, ericP, LeeF, SimonR, bijan
14:36:05 <ericP> CONTINUED
14:36:09 <bijan> zakim, mute me
14:36:09 <Zakim> bijan should now be muted
14:36:18 <LeeF> Regrets+ EliasT
14:36:25 <LeeF> Present:  AndyS, PatH, ericP, LeeF, SimonR, bijan
14:36:28 <ericP> ACTION: Bijan to see if the Chilean's semantics paper offers any (??)
14:36:31 <ericP> CONTINUED
14:36:38 <ericP> ACTION: EricP to review the tests in http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-dawg/2006JulSep/0180 and say yay or nay
14:36:43 <ericP> CONTINUED
14:36:48 <ericP> ACTION: KendallC to close formsOfDistinct issue
14:36:51 <ericP> CONTINUED
14:37:02 <bijan> Actually, let's close this: [NEW] ACTION: Bijan to see if the Chilean's semantics paper offers any (??)
14:37:11 <ericP> ACTION: KendallC to put scope of filters at the top of next week's agenda
14:37:15 <ericP> DONE
14:37:21 <Zakim> +[IPcaller]
14:37:21 <ericP> ACTION: PatH to review the proposed tests in http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-dawg/2006JulSep/0169 and say yay or nay
14:37:30 <ericP> CONTINUED
14:37:31 <bijan> Since I've done the review in some sense and we're moving into more specific stuff
14:37:32 <jeen> Zakim, [IPcaller] is me
14:37:32 <Zakim> +jeen; got it
14:37:51 <ericP> ACTION: bijan to write some text on the D-entailment issue
14:37:57 <ericP> CONTINUED
14:38:06 <ericP> action -4
14:38:14 <ericP> ACTION: BijanP to propose some editorial clarification text around DATATYPE
14:38:17 <ericP> CONTINUED
14:38:23 <ericP> zakim, take up next agendum
14:38:23 <Zakim> agendum 1. "Action Items" taken up [from ericP]
14:38:24 <bijan> 1+
14:38:25 <bijan> er
14:38:26 <bijan> q+
14:38:29 <ericP> zakim, take up agendum 2
14:38:29 <Zakim> agendum 2. "Continue discussion of scope of FILTERs" taken up [from ericP]
14:39:28 <ericP> LeeF: the apprent intention is that the scope of a FILTER comes from the nearest enclosing {}s
14:39:41 <ericP> ... there are related tests
14:39:52 <bijan> q+zakim, unmute me
14:39:57 <bijan> eek
14:40:03 <bijan> zakim, ack
14:40:03 <Zakim> I don't understand 'ack', bijan
14:40:06 <bijan> oy
14:40:08 <bijan> ack bijan
14:40:10 <bijan> ack zakim
14:40:13 <bijan> ack unmute me
14:40:17 <bijan> ack unmute
14:41:02 <patH> bijan, you on Q?
14:41:11 <bijan> yes
14:41:16 <bijan> Until I broke it :)
14:41:19 <bijan> zakim that is
14:41:51 <ericP> ... paradox with { ... { ... ?f FILTER (!BOUND(?g) } { ... ?g FILTER (!BOUND(?f) } } will happily pass because f and g are not bound where they are filtered
14:42:09 <bijan> zakim, unmute me
14:42:09 <Zakim> bijan was not muted, bijan
14:42:30 <ericP> AndyS, i think scribe and i (co-scribe?) missed the boat on recording your comment
14:43:07 <patH> AndyS: lees design is design change, but better than current.
14:43:17 <bijan> zakim, mute me
14:43:17 <Zakim> bijan should now be muted
14:43:31 <bijan> zakim, unmute me
14:43:31 <Zakim> bijan should no longer be muted
14:44:42 <bijan> oh, ok, now I'm confused
14:45:08 <bijan> {?x p c. OPTIONAL {?x p c.}}
14:45:09 <ericP> q+ to say you can always move the FILTER to an outer group
14:45:16 <ericP> q-
14:45:20 <SimonR> { ... FILTER ?x } UNION { ... FILTER ?x }
14:45:44 <bijan> Oy
14:46:13 <AndyS> Typing noise?
14:46:23 <ericP> patH, does this work? PROPOSED: the scope of a FILTER comes from the nearest enclosing {}s and the scopes inherit from outer {}s
14:46:43 <Zakim> +Fred_Zemke
14:46:54 <ericP> welcome Fred
14:46:59 <patH> not sure about the 'inherit', but I think so.
14:47:04 <LeeF> Present+ FredZ
14:47:17 <ericP> note all: no FredZ on irc
14:47:37 <patH> Fred, we are agenda 2, scxope of filters. Speak now or forever..
14:47:58 <FredZ> FredZ has joined #dawg
14:48:03 <patH> Ah, no irc, sorry.
14:48:04 <ericP> { { { ... FILTER ?x } UNION { ... FILTER ?x } } FILTER (whatever you want to apply to the UNION) }
14:48:55 <ericP> note all: FredZ now on irc
14:50:08 <SimonR> Do the variables in triple patterns and the variables within FILTERs act consistently (within the same group?)
14:50:35 <AndyS> q+
14:51:54 <jeen> Zakim, mute me
14:51:54 <Zakim> jeen should now be muted
14:52:26 <LeeF> bijan: I think we should decide on whether we have semantics that give the properties given in proposition 1 of SCS before deciding on the scope of filters
14:54:13 <SimonR> Interactions between scope and algebra, as a unifying action for the FILTER and OPTIONAL issues, et alia?
14:54:44 <FredZ> another interesting query: { triple OPTIONAL {...} FILTER(...) OPTIONAL {...} }
14:54:56 <FredZ> what is the first operand of the second OPTIONAL?
14:55:11 <Zakim> -LeeF
14:55:13 <bijan> zakim, mute me
14:55:13 <Zakim> bijan should now be muted
14:55:25 <AndyS> ack AndyS
14:55:26 <FredZ> is it an empty pattern with a FILTER, or is it the first OPTIONAL, and the FILTER is done later
14:55:30 <bijan> zakim, unmute me
14:55:30 <Zakim> bijan should no longer be muted
14:55:35 <Zakim> +LeeF
14:56:09 <AndyS> AndyS: blank nodes should be removed from the syntax of FILTERs if they are scoped to groups
14:56:12 <bijan> zakim, mute me
14:56:12 <Zakim> bijan should now be muted
14:56:17 <LeeF> fred, I think it's the first OPTIONAL
14:56:43 <FredZ> Lee, that's what my "SPARQL to trees" did
14:56:48 <LeeF> Right
14:57:02 <LeeF> I read through that paper, and it agreed almost entirely with my intuition and my implementation
14:57:11 <bijan> zakim, mute me
14:57:11 <Zakim> bijan was already muted, bijan
14:57:12 <LeeF> SimonR: I strongly agree that we should esttle the algebra before the scope of FILTERs
14:57:16 <bijan> zakim, unmute me
14:57:16 <Zakim> bijan should no longer be muted
14:57:24 <LeeF> s/esttle/settle
14:57:51 <LeeF> AndyS: I prefer going with a tentative design and then seeing if new information comes out when we settle the algebra
15:00:21 <LeeF> FredZ: Unhappy with the binary operators in the grammar -- FILTER and OPTIONAL -- which don't appear as binary operators in the grammar
15:00:54 <LeeF> Zakim, take up agendum 4
15:00:57 <Zakim> agendum 4. "SolutionModifier" taken up [from ericP]
15:00:57 <ericP> FredZ, does the syntax of SPARQL have this problem that you illustrated? or is it just this grammar for SPARQL?
15:01:04 <bijan> I wouldn't mind adding a topic on the first result of  my action itme
15:03:56 <ericP> L := (0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9)
15:04:54 <ericP> LIMIT 2 OFFSET 5 gives you (5 6)
15:05:10 <ericP> vs OFFSET 5 LIMIT 2
15:05:47 <LeeF> AndyS: we could have a grammar that allows either order, always processed as the semantics specify now
15:05:53 <LeeF> ericP: +1 to that proposal
15:08:33 <bijan> LeeF, I need to chat with you about the scope thing, you have a minute afterwards?
15:08:37 <bijan> ROWNUMBER?!?!??!
15:08:54 <ericP> PROPOSED: adopt [14]  SolutionModifier ::= OrderClause? OffsetLimitClause?   [14a] OffsetLimitClause ::= (LIMIT (OFFSET)?) | (OFFSET (LIMIT)?)   (allows "LIMIT 2 OFFSET 5" and "OFFSET 5 LIMIT 2")
15:08:57 <patH> shush, bijan.
15:09:26 <LeeF> bijan, sure
15:10:23 <bijan> As a presentation matter, if we had an abstract form, then the surface syntax could be more liberal
15:10:46 <ericP> "OFFSET 5 ORDER BY ?s LIMIT 2"
15:11:06 <bijan> abstain (don't care)
15:11:10 <FredZ> abstain
15:11:20 <LeeF> PROPOSED: adopt [14]  SolutionModifier ::= OrderClause? OffsetLimitClause?   [14a] OffsetLimitClause ::= (LIMIT (OFFSET)?) | (OFFSET (LIMIT)?)   (allows "LIMIT 2 OFFSET 5" and "OFFSET 5 LIMIT 2")
15:11:24 <LeeF> RESOLVED, 3 abstentions
15:11:59 <bijan> In my case is that I don't care and I think it doesn't have any otehr effect
15:12:04 <bijan> zakim, unmute me
15:12:04 <Zakim> bijan was not muted, bijan
15:12:58 <bijan> q+
15:14:24 <bijan> zakim, muteme
15:14:24 <Zakim> I don't understand 'muteme', bijan
15:14:28 <bijan> zakim, mute me
15:14:28 <Zakim> bijan should now be muted
15:14:40 <bijan> zakim, unmute me
15:14:40 <Zakim> bijan should no longer be muted
15:14:46 <ericP> zakim, take up agendum 3
15:14:46 <Zakim> agendum 3. "Is there an issue with NAF & !BOUND?" taken up [from ericP]
15:15:18 <FredZ> Eric asked if my problem with FILTER and OPTIONAL was with the grammar or with the language?
15:15:37 <ericP> FredZ, yes
15:15:44 <FredZ> The answer is that I have struggled to rewrite the grammar to make FILTER and OPTIONAL into conventional binary operators
15:15:50 <AndyS> There is a proposed chnage for optional - Fred - I've not had feedback on that.
15:15:54 <FredZ> and I have not found a way.  
15:16:02 <ericP> aha. language then
15:16:30 <FredZ> Andy: yes, your idea is a step forward, though ideally i'd like to see
15:16:51 <AndyS> q+ to ask if there is new information (UNSAID)
15:16:58 <FredZ> a BNF like: OptionalPattern ::= GroupGraphPattern OPTIONAL GroupGraphPattern
15:17:24 <LeeF> example of NAF via OPTIONAL and !bound: http://thefigtrees.net/lee/sw/sparql-faq#universal
15:18:08 <ericP> patH, most popular use case i remember was: find all the foaf:Persons who are missing an mbox
15:19:12 <LeeF> actually, the example at the URL above is of MIN
15:19:51 <bijan> I lost everything from andy
15:19:53 <ericP> http://www.w3.org/TR/2004/WD-rdf-sparql-query-20041012/#unsaid
15:20:25 <bijan> I lost that
15:20:26 <bijan> What?
15:22:34 <AndyS> ack AndyS
15:22:34 <Zakim> AndyS, you wanted to ask if there is new information (UNSAID)
15:23:15 <AndyS> UNSAID is a filter despite the appearance of a graph pattern
15:23:24 <bijan> Uh, is that link from ericP supposed to resolve to:
15:23:32 <bijan> Section status: working group is not working on this feature at the moment. It is currently likely to be dropped from the SPARQL query language.
15:23:34 <bijan> ?
15:23:42 <LeeF> bijan, yes
15:24:02 <ericP> yea, as i said, it just says that it's at risk, and we later backed that up by removing it
15:26:31 <SimonR> The use of NAF is based on a closed world assumption.  Can we approach giving people NAF a better way.  For example, in some way allowing people to explicitly say "this graph knows everything about X, so NAF applies in this particular case"
15:27:17 <AndyS> http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/DataAccess/issues#unsaid
15:30:57 <bijan> +1
15:31:13 <ericP> +1 to LeeF 
15:31:49 <ericP> cwm has log:notIncludes but it always get used on the command line with another invocation (which just moves the expressivity into /bin/sh)
15:32:08 <AndyS> zakim, who is on the phone
15:32:08 <Zakim> I don't understand 'who is on the phone', AndyS
15:32:20 <Zakim> -jeen
15:32:55 <SimonR> Just for the record, my observation is that trying to do this with a single negation operator is always going to be confusing; the modal approach is the only approach I can think of that is fairly simple.
15:33:39 <LeeF> zakim, who's on the phone?
15:33:39 <Zakim> On the phone I see AndyS, PatH, ericP, SimonR, bijan, Fred_Zemke, LeeF
15:33:58 <bijan> http://lists.mindswap.org/pipermail/pellet-users/2006-September/000884.html
15:34:38 <bijan> If it's punted, it's punted
15:35:02 <patH> yes, its punted until someone has new information to offer.
15:35:46 <LeeF> zakim, take up agendeum 5
15:35:46 <Zakim> I don't understand 'take up agendeum 5', LeeF
15:36:00 <ericP> zakim, take up agendum 5
15:36:00 <Zakim> agendum 5. "Continue discussion on open world and other value tests" taken up [from ericP]
15:36:02 <LeeF> zakim, take up agendum 5
15:36:03 <Zakim> agendum 5. "Continue discussion on open world and other value tests" taken up [from ericP]
15:36:46 <AndyS> Why are we taking this up when other requests are declined?
15:40:42 <bijan> zakim, mute me
15:40:42 <Zakim> bijan should now be muted
15:42:39 <LeeF> zakim, mute me please
15:42:39 <Zakim> LeeF should now be muted
15:43:25 <ericP> agenda?
15:43:44 <LeeF> ack
15:43:51 <LeeF> ack leef
15:44:36 <bijan> zakim, unmute me
15:44:36 <Zakim> bijan should no longer be muted
15:45:05 <Zakim> -Fred_Zemke
15:45:13 <AndyS> EricP asked in email.
15:45:17 <LeeF> PROPOSED to adjourn
15:45:20 <AndyS> +1
15:45:30 <bijan> And I didn't ask you to read what I written.
15:45:39 <LeeF> ADJOURNED.
15:45:42 <bijan> I was wondering if you had had prior commentary
15:45:46 <LeeF> rrsagent, stop