IRC log of dawg on 2006-10-10

Timestamps are in UTC.

14:28:45 [RRSAgent]
RRSAgent has joined #dawg
14:28:45 [RRSAgent]
logging to
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]
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]
14:29:27 [AndyS]
zakim, ??P1 is AndyS
14:29:28 [Zakim]
+AndyS; got it
14:29:33 [Zakim]
14:29:41 [Zakim]
14:29:57 [Zakim]
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]
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]
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]
14:32:23 [LeeF]
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:
14:35:20 [ericP]
ACTION: Bijan review rq24 against
14:35:23 [LeeF]
PROPOSED approve minutes
14:35:24 [ericP]
14:35:24 [bijan]
zakim, mute me
14:35:24 [Zakim]
bijan should now be muted
14:35:25 [LeeF]
14:35:28 [ericP]
action -1
14:35:34 [ericP]
ACTION: AndyS to edit text for DISTINCT = term-distinct
14:35:36 [ericP]
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]
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]
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]
14:36:38 [ericP]
ACTION: EricP to review the tests in and say yay or nay
14:36:43 [ericP]
14:36:48 [ericP]
ACTION: KendallC to close formsOfDistinct issue
14:36:51 [ericP]
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]
14:37:21 [Zakim]
14:37:21 [ericP]
ACTION: PatH to review the proposed tests in and say yay or nay
14:37:30 [ericP]
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]
14:38:06 [ericP]
action -4
14:38:14 [ericP]
ACTION: BijanP to propose some editorial clarification text around DATATYPE
14:38:17 [ericP]
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]
14:38:25 [bijan]
14:38:26 [bijan]
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]
14:40:03 [bijan]
zakim, ack
14:40:03 [Zakim]
I don't understand 'ack', bijan
14:40:06 [bijan]
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]
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]
14:45:20 [SimonR]
{ ... FILTER ?x } UNION { ... FILTER ?x }
14:45:44 [bijan]
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]
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]
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]
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]
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]
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]
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]
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]
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]
15:11:06 [bijan]
abstain (don't care)
15:11:10 [FredZ]
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]
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:
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]
15:20:25 [bijan]
I lost that
15:20:26 [bijan]
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]
15:30:57 [bijan]
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]
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]
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]
15:43:44 [LeeF]
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]
15:45:13 [AndyS]
EricP asked in email.
15:45:17 [LeeF]
PROPOSED to adjourn
15:45:20 [AndyS]
15:45:30 [bijan]
And I didn't ask you to read what I written.
15:45:39 [LeeF]
15:45:42 [bijan]
I was wondering if you had had prior commentary
15:45:46 [LeeF]
rrsagent, stop