IRC log of dawg on 2006-10-17

Timestamps are in UTC.

14:02:43 [RRSAgent]
RRSAgent has joined #dawg
14:02:43 [RRSAgent]
logging to
14:02:48 [kendallclark]
zakim, this will be dawg
14:02:48 [Zakim]
ok, kendallclark; I see SW_DAWG()10:30AM scheduled to start in 28 minutes
14:02:54 [kendallclark]
thanks, zakim
14:03:39 [kendallclark]
zakim, agenda+ convene, agenda comments?, roll call, approve minutes, next meeting, recruit scribe
14:03:41 [Zakim]
agendum 1 added
14:03:48 [kendallclark]
zakim, agenda+ action items
14:03:48 [Zakim]
agendum 2 added
14:04:26 [kendallclark]
agenda+ Can We Go Home^H^H^H^H^H to Last Call Again?
14:04:35 [kendallclark]
zakim, agenda+ Grammar Changes
14:04:35 [Zakim]
agendum 4 added
14:05:17 [kendallclark]
zakim, agenda+ Approving some open world value tests
14:05:17 [Zakim]
agendum 5 added
14:05:45 [kendallclark]
zakim, agenda+ Scope of FILTERs
14:05:45 [Zakim]
agendum 6 added
14:08:10 [kendallclark]
kendallclark has changed the topic to: This is DAWG
14:15:04 [jeen]
jeen has joined #dawg
14:15:54 [ericP]
constraints it imposes.]]
14:18:20 [kendallclark]
(hmm, i thought the point was just that, since turtle is commutative, that's a pressure to make, say, optional commutative...or put the other way: inasmuch as we try to make optional order *dependent*, there's a clash with turtle)
14:19:27 [LeeF]
I think I'm still a fan of requiring the first argument to OPTIONAL to be a GroupGraphPattern (as Fred? suggested very recently) - I asked about that a while back (why it wasn't that way) and don't remember the answer I got -- curious what objections are to that
14:19:36 [SimonR]
(I think that's "associative" rather than "commutative".)
14:19:37 [LeeF]
other than it breaking a fair amount of existing SPARQL queries
14:20:41 [AndyS]
If we go for OPTIONAL = left join operator, then its like OPTIONAL applies to everything to the left.
14:22:43 [kendallclark]
(fwiw, i put v. little stock personally in backward compat. at this stage.)
14:22:54 [SimonR]
I still have a bit of an issue with the `unbound' fields that OPTIONAL introduces. They're more like `overbound' AFAICT. Very different from the other unbounds we generate by the other ops.
14:23:09 [AndyS]
The "everything to the left" scoping works quite nicely for both forms of evaluation as well. The app can put {} in for the unusual cases (if there are any)
14:24:58 [AndyS]
SimonR: it's like "missing info" vs "not needed info" NULLs
14:25:10 [LeeF]
i'mn not sure I understand "everything to the left"
14:25:31 [LeeF]
does that mean that:
14:25:31 [LeeF]
{ { A } UNION { B } . C OPTIONAL { D } . E }
14:25:44 [LeeF]
the first argument to OPTIONAL is a Group containing the UNION and containing C?
14:25:49 [LeeF]
a group that isn't marked explicitly in the syntax?
14:26:22 [SimonR]
AndyS: In a way, yeah. But it's a bit more of an algebraic issue rather than a matter of just human interpretation in this case.
14:26:30 [AndyS]
Yes - that parsing. It's equiv (I think) to having LeftJoin and Join in groups.
14:26:45 [LeeF]
Not a big fan of implicit groups
14:26:59 [AndyS]
SimonR: we still have 4 more nulls to go! (Codd's 6 kinds)
14:27:51 [kendallclark]
heh, doing lots of integration work for nasa these days... there are 6 kinds of nulls, conceptually, but dozens and dozens of ways of spelling them! :(
14:28:12 [SimonR]
We could go back to CODASYL and have 14 to choose from, IIRC. :)
14:28:25 [kendallclark]
simon: you ready to scribe?
14:28:35 [AndyS]
May there are more than 6 kinds - just add an extra quark to the mix and hey presto - more kinds of particles
14:28:36 [SimonR]
As really as I'm going to get.
14:28:50 [SimonR]
Let me just phone it. Is Zakim ready to take calls?
14:28:53 [SimonR]
14:28:56 [kendallclark]
14:28:59 [LeeF]
zakim, what's the phone number?
14:28:59 [Zakim]
I don't understand your question, LeeF.
14:29:04 [LeeF]
zakim, access code?
14:29:04 [Zakim]
I don't understand your question, LeeF.
14:29:06 [LeeF]
zakim, code?
14:29:06 [Zakim]
the conference code is 7333 (tel:+1.617.761.6200), LeeF
14:29:25 [Zakim]
SW_DAWG()10:30AM has now started
14:29:32 [Zakim]
14:29:39 [Zakim]
14:29:42 [Zakim]
14:29:43 [Zakim]
14:29:50 [Zakim]
14:29:50 [SimonR]
Zakim, ??P24 is SimonR
14:29:51 [Zakim]
+SimonR; got it
14:29:51 [AndyS]
zakim, ??P25 is me
14:29:51 [Zakim]
+AndyS; got it
14:29:54 [Zakim]
14:29:58 [Zakim]
14:30:04 [LeeF]
zakim, Lee_Feigenbaum is me
14:30:05 [Zakim]
+LeeF; got it
14:30:11 [Zakim]
14:30:19 [jeen]
Zakim, [IPcaller] is me
14:30:19 [Zakim]
+jeen; got it
14:30:38 [ericP]
zakim, ??P26 is me
14:30:38 [Zakim]
+ericP; got it
14:30:41 [kendallclark]
zakim, who's on the phone?
14:30:41 [Zakim]
On the phone I see SimonR, AndyS, ericP, Kendall_Clark, LeeF, jeen
14:30:45 [ericP]
Zakim, mute me
14:30:45 [Zakim]
ericP should now be muted
14:30:52 [ericP]
sound check
14:31:00 [ericP]
ack me
14:31:59 [SimonR]
Regrets: SteveH and BijanP (
14:32:09 [kendallc1ark]
kendallc1ark has joined #dawg
14:32:17 [kendallc1ark]
zakim, who's on the phone
14:32:17 [Zakim]
I don't understand 'who's on the phone', kendallc1ark
14:32:19 [LeeF]
Scribe: SimonR
14:32:19 [kendallc1ark]
zakim, who's on the phone?
14:32:19 [Zakim]
On the phone I see SimonR, AndyS, ericP, Kendall_Clark, LeeF, jeen
14:32:27 [LeeF]
Chair: kendallc1ark
14:32:44 [LeeF]
Meeting: RDF DAWG Weekly
14:32:46 [kendallc1ark]
zakim, take up agendum 1
14:32:46 [Zakim]
agendum 1. "convene, agenda comments?, roll call, approve minutes, next meeting, recruit scribe" taken up [from kendallclark]
14:32:51 [ericP]
ericP has changed the topic to: DAWG telecon; agenda:
14:33:21 [SimonR]
No comments on agenda.
14:34:17 [kendallclark]
kendallclark has joined #dawg
14:34:27 [Zakim]
14:34:48 [kendallclark]
kendallclark has joined #dawg
14:35:01 [SimonR]
PRESENT: SimonR, AndyS, ericP, Kendall_Clark, LeeF, jeen, FredZ
14:35:27 [kendallclark]
zakim, agenda?
14:35:27 [Zakim]
I see 6 items remaining on the agenda:
14:35:28 [Zakim]
1. convene, agenda comments?, roll call, approve minutes, next meeting, recruit scribe [from kendallclark]
14:35:30 [Zakim]
2. action items [from kendallclark]
14:35:32 [Zakim]
3. Can We Go Home^H^H^H^H^H to Last Call Again? [from kendallclark]
14:35:33 [fred]
fred has joined #dawg
14:35:33 [Zakim]
4. Grammar Changes [from kendallclark]
14:35:34 [Zakim]
5. Approving some open world value tests [from kendallclark]
14:35:35 [Zakim]
6. Scope of FILTERs [from kendallclark]
14:35:36 [Zakim]
14:35:46 [patH]
patH has joined #dawg
14:36:22 [kendallclark]
14:36:53 [LeeF]
+1 to next week
14:36:58 [SimonR]
Minutes approved, seconded by SimonR
14:37:10 [SimonR]
EricP is at risk for the next meeting (24th)
14:37:19 [kendallclark]
zakim, please pick a scribe
14:37:19 [Zakim]
Not knowing who is chairing or who scribed recently, I propose ericP
14:37:22 [kendallclark]
zakim, please pick a scribe
14:37:22 [Zakim]
Not knowing who is chairing or who scribed recently, I propose PatH
14:37:24 [SimonR]
Kendall is available to chair for the next meeting.
14:37:32 [LeeF]
I'll scribe
14:37:53 [kendallclark]
PROP'd to meet 24 Oct, KC chair, LeeF scrib
14:37:54 [SimonR]
LeeF to scribe on the 24th.
14:38:08 [kendallclark]
zakim, take up next agendum
14:38:08 [Zakim]
agendum 2. "action items" taken up [from kendallclark]
14:38:34 [LeeF]
for the record: Elias passed on to me "at risk" status for today. he needs to scrounge up a phone in the remote regions of central Massachusetts in which he finds himself today.
14:39:36 [kendallclark]
14:40:00 [SimonR]
Chair proposes to withdraw some of the many actions currently assigned to BijanP.
14:40:09 [ericP]
ACTION: Bijan review rq24 against Public/public-rdf-dawg-comments/2006Jun/0008 [DONE]
14:40:12 [ericP]
action -1
14:40:21 [ericP]
ACTION: Bijan to see if the Chilean's semantics paper offers any (guidance r: filter?) [DONE]
14:40:24 [ericP]
action -2
14:40:55 [ericP]
ACTION: EricP to review the tests in Archives/Public/public-rdf-dawg/2006JulSep/0180 and say yay or nay [DONE]
14:40:58 [ericP]
action -3
14:41:20 [ericP]
ACTION: KendallC to close formsOfDistinct issue [DONE]
14:41:30 [ericP]
action -4
14:41:34 [SimonR]
Kendall will have to email results of his formsOfdistinct issue due to CVS issues, so pending.
14:41:43 [ericP]
ACTION: PatH to review the proposed tests in http:// and say yay or nay [CONTINUED]
14:42:19 [SimonR]
14:42:40 [kendallclark]
zakim, take up next agendum
14:42:40 [Zakim]
agendum 3. "Can We Go Home^H^H^H^H^H to Last Call Again?" taken up [from kendallclark]
14:43:01 [LeeF]
ACTION: LeeF and EliasT to summarize open SPARQL protocol issues and propose resolutions in email to WG
14:44:38 [SimonR]
Chair warns that he may not be able participate in DAWG in 2007; should consider who will be next chair, and try to get as much done before transition.
14:46:43 [SimonR]
FredZ: Doesn't see much advance in strengthening the formal semantics; primary barrier to going to LC
14:47:46 [kendallclark]
+1 from UMD on that point
14:48:17 [kendallclark]
Fred: push formal semantics into separate section of doc, not distributed thru'out
14:50:44 [SimonR]
14:50:52 [SimonR]
14:51:01 [AndyS]
14:51:22 [SimonR]
14:51:26 [patH]
14:51:34 [SimonR]
(Kendall just covered my issue)
14:52:08 [LeeF]
q+ to express reservations about the time-cost of reworking the current document in a large manner
14:52:16 [SimonR]
Kendall notes that the idea of a separate formal semantics document has be explored previously and decided against.
14:52:54 [SimonR]
FredZ isn't suggesting a second document, just an appendix or the like where the formal definition is collected.
14:53:16 [AndyS]
The editors didn't think parallel work woudl help - not that they were against a separate doc - the docs need to be linked and other groups have found this to be a serious problem
14:53:18 [patH]
seems like there are issues f presentation and those of actual content. I suggest first can be left aside for now until we get the secnod sorted out. Maybe separate temporary document is a good strategy for getting the latter sorted out.
14:53:31 [patH]
14:54:10 [LeeF]
+1 to patH -- second document (perhaps starting from one of Fred's papers analyzing the semantics) as a way to get the semantic content sorted out sounds like a good idea to me
14:54:47 [kendallclark]
or starting w/ the chilean's semantics doc, which is rumored to be (1) nearly complete and (2) almost ready for circulation
14:55:10 [LeeF]
I'd be fine with that, also, though I'm not sure how complete it is.
14:55:38 [AndyS]
Chilean doc applies to lean graphs so we still have work there
14:55:48 [kendallclark]
well, no one is, since they aren't circulating it yet
14:56:09 [kendallclark]
there's *another* chilean doc, andy
14:56:20 [kendallclark]
i'm not talking about the one they've circulated
14:56:34 [patH]
Lean graphs is an easy case.
14:56:35 [kendallclark]
(and, yes, referring to non-public docs is bullshit. Sorry. :>)
14:56:43 [LeeF]
Ah, I didn't know there was another doc.
14:56:49 [AndyS]
14:56:50 [kendallclark]
14:56:55 [kendallclark]
ack AndS
14:56:58 [kendallclark]
ack AndyS
14:57:30 [patH]
Ive got an alternative suggestion for treating the basic semantics conditons as a necessary but not sufficeint constraint. THis is 'weak' but relatively uncontroversial and undercommitted. Manchester will be unhappy but not in open revolt.
14:57:32 [SimonR]
FredZ: Analysis of queries requires global info, which is why distributing the formal definitions makes thing difficult.
14:58:56 [kendallclark]
ack LeeF
14:58:56 [Zakim]
LeeF, you wanted to express reservations about the time-cost of reworking the current document in a large manner
14:59:05 [AndyS]
q+ to talk about "alogorithm"
15:00:26 [SimonR]
LeeF: FredZ has valid concerns, but also need to consider getting things done in a timely fashion.
15:00:28 [AndyS]
15:02:47 [SimonR]
Kendall: Doesn't see that the changes proposed are likely to actually be incorporated in the document. Semantics is the "900lb gorilla", which means that closing smaller issues is helpful without really getting us finished
15:02:54 [ericP]
15:03:52 [AndyS]
+1 to more test cases - and it's a WG output
15:04:24 [AndyS]
Operational semantics for the algebra are doable. It's entailment that is open.
15:05:10 [SimonR]
PatH: Semantics is ambiguous -- model-theoretic (Enrico) vs algebraic (Fred).
15:05:14 [AndyS]
just change to bottom-up evaluation (carefully!) and OPTIONAL == LeftJoin
15:06:54 [AndyS]
15:07:14 [SimonR]
Kendall: Does entailment matter, given the current group membership?
15:07:27 [jeen]
zakim, mute me
15:07:27 [Zakim]
jeen should now be muted
15:07:37 [SimonR]
15:08:09 [AndyS]
It matters to HP that we have a proper review in LC and CR and be responsive to comments.
15:08:20 [kendallclark]
ack AndyS
15:08:29 [SimonR]
FredZ: Working on a paper to show that adopting mapping won't preclude entailment
15:08:59 [ericP]
q+ to mention charter
15:09:50 [patH]
+1 to doing very most minimal thing that will work. BUt not ignore totally. I think we are in violent agreement.
15:09:53 [kendallclark]
ack ericp
15:09:53 [Zakim]
ericP, you wanted to mention charter
15:10:03 [jeen]
...what pat said
15:10:30 [SimonR]
EricP: Mapping would minimally satisfy the charter.
15:11:31 [AndyS]
Thanks to Pat for the offer!
15:12:37 [SimonR]
15:12:59 [LeeF]
15:13:12 [patH]
pat will draft replacement vanilla entailment section.
15:13:38 [kendallclark]
ACTION PatH: to draft replacement vanilla entailment section for WG consideration
15:14:35 [SimonR]
Kendall: Encourages removal of things from the language.
15:15:11 [SimonR]
(Particularly OPTIONAL)
15:15:27 [LeeF]
I need to check with some other folks, but I believe my organization would object to dropping OPTIONAL.
15:15:46 [SimonR]
15:17:43 [LeeF]
+10million to Simon
15:18:29 [patH]
suggest that Kendalls general point is well taken, but we don't drop optional *today*.
15:18:51 [SimonR]
SimonR: OPTIONAL is a bad solution, but the problem it solves is a vital one -- even a bad solution is better than no solution
15:19:19 [patH]
SimonR, any suggestion for an alternative way of doing the practical job?
15:19:49 [kendallclark]
zakim, take up next agendum
15:19:49 [Zakim]
agendum 4. "Grammar Changes" taken up [from kendallclark]
15:20:01 [SimonR]
EricP: Urges keeping plugging away on test cases. Definitely gets closer to LC
15:20:08 [kendallclark]
15:20:41 [SimonR]
15:23:47 [SimonR]
AndyS: Grammar changes (0055) -- LIMIT/OFFSET, OPTIONAL, FILTERS as part of groups (no bnodes in FILTERs)
15:27:03 [SimonR]
AndyS: (cont'd) /u escape processing removed to a separate preprocessing phase; bugfixes for bnode GRAPH, brackets around function calls, lowercase token rule name should've been uppercase. The only language change is the bnode/FILTER one
15:29:11 [LeeF]
For the record, in the email referenced above I think it would be correct to s/NCNAME1p/NCCHAR1p (very very very minor point)
15:32:13 [SimonR]
Chair requests a decision on grammar change #3 (bnode/FILTER)
15:32:38 [LeeF]
Is it #56 PrimaryExpression ?
15:32:54 [LeeF]
I think it is.
15:32:59 [Zakim]
15:33:00 [LeeF]
BlankNode was removed from #56 PrimaryExpression
15:33:02 [SimonR]
FredZ: Suggests we might accept this restriction now, with the option to later relax
15:33:40 [AndyS]
[42] GraphNode ::= VarOrTerm | TriplesNode
15:33:58 [Zakim]
15:34:05 [jeen]
zakim, [IPcaller] is me
15:34:05 [Zakim]
+jeen; got it
15:35:42 [AndyS]
Sorry - Lee found the right place
15:35:59 [LeeF]
PROPOSED to change SPARQL grammar to eliminate BlankNodes from primary expressions (and therefore from FILTER expressions)
15:36:02 [SimonR]
PROPOSED to adopt the prohibition of bnodes in FILTER, as per grammar change #3
15:38:18 [LeeF]
PROPOSED to accept all grammar changes in
15:39:08 [SimonR]
APPROVED to accept all 7 grammar changes in 0055.html
15:39:10 [LeeF]
15:39:23 [ericP]
15:39:26 [ericP]
15:40:06 [AndyS]
15:40:14 [ericP]
15:40:41 [ericP]
zakim, take up next agendum
15:40:41 [Zakim]
agendum 5. "Approving some open world value tests" taken up [from kendallclark]
15:41:36 [SimonR]
AndyS proposed these tests, Eric agrees with the first 6, Kendall also likes them.
15:42:03 [ericP]
15:42:23 [AndyS]
which is
15:43:10 [patH]
Element 118 has been synthesised for the first time. Three atoms lasted about 9.10-4 seconds. A great day for Science.
15:43:28 [SimonR]
EricP: Suggests approving the first 6; issue raised by others about how to test extended implementations.
15:43:58 [AndyS]
15:46:47 [ericP]
PROPOSED: approve open-eq-0{1,2,3,4,5,6}
15:47:13 [SimonR]
PROPOSED to approve the open world value testing test cases open-eq-01 to open-eq-06 (0071.html)
15:47:24 [SimonR]
15:50:42 [SimonR]
Scope of FILTERS issue discussion picked up.
15:50:58 [fred]
{ ?x ?y ?z OPTIONAL {....} FILTER (...) OPTIONAL {...}}
15:51:14 [fred]
in preceding example, does the FILTER interrupt the two OPTIONALs
15:51:22 [LeeF]
Fred, I think that's a different issue
15:51:24 [fred]
so that the second one's first argument is an empty pattern
15:51:59 [kendallclark]
kendallclark has joined #dawg
15:52:06 [kendallclark]
(stupid network)
15:52:09 [AndyS]
If the optional applies to the all to the left, it works out.
15:52:12 [ericP]
.PROPOSED: the scope of a FILTER comes from the nearest enclosing {}s and the scopes inherit from outer {}s
15:52:38 [AndyS]
10 01{ ?x ?y ?z OPTIONAL {....} FILTER (...) OPTIONAL {...}}
15:53:19 [kendallclark]
+1 to andy's point
15:53:37 [AndyS]
10 01{ { ?x ?y ?z OPTIONAL {....} FILTER (...) } OPTIONAL {...}}
15:54:14 [kendallclark]
for some reason I can't see what Andy's just typed :)
15:54:18 [kendallclark]
no matter
15:54:19 [ericP]
15:54:31 [LeeF]
Reiterates reservations about implicit curly brackets!
15:54:43 [patH]
{ ?x ?y ?z OPTIONAL {....} FILTER (...) OPTIONAL {...}}
15:54:56 [fred]
I agree with Lee, I think explicit braces for first arg of OPTIONAL would be good
15:55:27 [AndyS]
Lee means? 10 01{ ?x ?y ?z OPTIONAL {....} OPTIONAL {...} FILTER (...)}
15:55:46 [ericP]
2006-10-17T15:52:38Z <AndyS> { ?x ?y ?z OPTIONAL {....} FILTER (...) OPTIONAL {...}}
15:55:47 [SimonR]
Foo- { { ?x ?y ?z} OPTIONAL {....} FILTER (...) OPTIONAL {...}}
15:55:49 [ericP]
2006-10-17T15:53:37Z <AndyS> { { ?x ?y ?z OPTIONAL {....} FILTER (...) } OPTIONAL {...}}
15:56:06 [ericP]
huh, was just invisible, but it was available for paste
15:58:37 [kendallclark]
Leef: will you write in IRC an example of what you want? I still haven't seen it clearly ;)
15:58:48 [LeeF]
I want *this* to be illegal:
15:59:00 [LeeF]
{ :a :b :c OPTIONAL { :d :e :f } }
15:59:02 [LeeF]
in favor ot
15:59:11 [LeeF]
{ { :a :b :c } OPTIONAL { :d :e :f } }
15:59:22 [patH]
Im confused, myself.
15:59:56 [AndyS]
{ {} OPTIONAL {} UNION {} } since has precedence to consider
15:59:56 [SimonR]
PROPOSED to extend for 5 mintes
16:00:18 [LeeF]
yes, definitely precedence to consider, but i'd be hoping that it would be easy to nail down :)
16:02:24 [fred]
I think mandatory braces means no need for precedence
16:02:52 [LeeF]
fred, we'd need associativity specified, right?
16:03:21 [AndyS]
See 04 01{ {} OPTIONAL {} UNION {} }
16:03:23 [fred]
not if OPTIONAL is only binary operator
16:03:29 [fred]
note that UNION is n-ary
16:03:36 [patH]
Good point, fred.
16:03:40 [LeeF]
ah, I see
16:03:45 [Zakim]
16:03:46 [LeeF]
RRSAgent, please draft minutes
16:03:46 [RRSAgent]
I have made the request to generate LeeF
16:03:52 [kendallclark]
/msg LeeF
16:03:54 [LeeF]
RRSAgent, make logs world-access
16:03:57 [kendallclark]
/msg LeeF so...
16:04:05 [Zakim]
16:04:12 [SimonR]
FredZ to repost pointers to previous arguments for curlies on OPTIZONAL LHS; AndyS argues in favor of status quo for back-compatibility
16:04:39 [LeeF]
ACTION: FredZ to repost pointers to previous arguments for curlies on OPTIZONAL LHS
16:04:44 [SimonR]
16:04:47 [LeeF]
RRSAgent, please draft minutes
16:04:47 [RRSAgent]
I have made the request to generate LeeF
16:04:51 [LeeF]
RRSAgent, make logs world-access
16:05:30 [SimonR]
Okay, I can see the log. I should be okay with it.
16:07:00 [Zakim]
16:07:32 [ericP]
SimonR, if you just want to mail me a replacement for 17-dawg-minutes.html (after you've edited it), i can commit it in place
16:07:40 [Zakim]
16:07:42 [Zakim]
16:07:42 [Zakim]
16:07:47 [AndyS]
AndyS has left #dawg
16:07:53 [SimonR]
EricP: Can do!
16:08:19 [Zakim]
16:08:29 [SimonR]
I'll try to get this done within the prescribed 24 hour turnaround rather than letting it linger like I did last time. I'm not saving myself any effort that way. :P
16:08:36 [Zakim]
16:08:37 [Zakim]
SW_DAWG()10:30AM has ended
16:08:38 [Zakim]
Attendees were SimonR, AndyS, Kendall_Clark, LeeF, jeen, ericP, Fred_Zemke, PatH
16:08:49 [ericP]
SimonR, yeah, i always suffer when i leave it for too late