IRC log of dawg on 2006-10-24

Timestamps are in UTC.

14:26:17 [RRSAgent]
RRSAgent has joined #dawg
14:26:17 [RRSAgent]
logging to
14:26:20 [kendallclark]
zakim, this will be dawg
14:26:20 [Zakim]
I don't understand 'this will be dawg', kendallclark
14:26:25 [kendallclark]
zakim, this will be dawg
14:26:25 [Zakim]
ok, kendallclark; I see SW_DAWG()10:30AM scheduled to start in 4 minutes
14:26:32 [AndyS]
Be back in a moment
14:26:34 [AndyS]
AndyS has left #dawg
14:26:34 [LeeF]
zakim, it's an extra space character, don't be such a stickler
14:26:34 [Zakim]
I don't understand you, LeeF
14:26:37 [kendallclark]
zakim, you are one picky bot
14:26:37 [Zakim]
I don't understand 'you are one picky bot', kendallclark
14:26:47 [kendallclark]
zakim, anything
14:26:47 [Zakim]
I don't understand 'anything', kendallclark
14:26:50 [kendallclark]
I know.
14:27:08 [kendallclark]
zakim, how my bottish life can be so meaningless.
14:27:08 [Zakim]
I don't understand you, kendallclark
14:27:13 [kendallclark]
14:27:15 [kendallclark]
14:27:17 [LeeF]
oo, he got you good
14:27:48 [kendallclark]
agenda+ convene, agenda comments, roll call, minutes, next meeting, recruit scribe
14:27:54 [kendallclark]
agenda+ action items
14:28:02 [kendallclark]
agenda+ expressions in select
14:28:17 [kendallclark]
agenda+ scope of filter
14:28:28 [patH]
patH has joined #dawg
14:28:33 [kendallclark]
agenda+ operational definition of SPARQL algebra
14:28:36 [LeeF]
zakim, passcode?
14:28:36 [Zakim]
the conference code is 7333 (tel:+1.617.761.6200), LeeF
14:28:40 [kendallclark]
hmm, that's enough for now, I think
14:28:53 [Zakim]
SW_DAWG()10:30AM has now started
14:29:00 [Zakim]
14:29:13 [Zakim]
14:29:16 [Zakim]
14:29:18 [Zakim]
14:29:47 [LeeF]
zakim, who's on the phone?
14:29:47 [Zakim]
On the phone I see [IBMCambridge], PatH
14:30:16 [LeeF]
zakim, IBMCambridge is LeeF
14:30:16 [Zakim]
+LeeF; got it
14:31:01 [LeeF]
Scribe: LeeF
14:31:03 [LeeF]
Chair: kendallclark
14:31:09 [LeeF]
Meeting: RDF DAWG Weekly
14:31:17 [AndyS]
AndyS has joined #dawg
14:31:32 [kendallclark]
feeling sick today, moving slowly
14:31:51 [LeeF]
Regrets: SteveH
14:32:01 [Zakim]
14:32:04 [kendallclark]
Regrets: FredZ too
14:32:05 [AndyS]
zakim, ??P28 is me
14:32:05 [Zakim]
+AndyS; got it
14:32:06 [LeeF]
Present: kendallclark, LeeF, PatH, AndyS
14:32:10 [LeeF]
Regrets +FredZ
14:32:29 [kendallclark]
hmm, /me locked out...
14:32:34 [Zakim]
14:32:53 [LeeF]
Regrets +EricP
14:33:11 [Zakim]
14:33:14 [Zakim]
14:33:25 [SimonR]
Zakim, ??P29 is SimonR
14:33:25 [Zakim]
+SimonR; got it
14:33:25 [kendallclark]
zakim, who's on the phone?
14:33:26 [Zakim]
On the phone I see LeeF, AndyS, Kendall_Clark, SimonR
14:33:33 [LeeF]
Present +SimonR
14:33:36 [Zakim]
14:34:12 [kendallclark]
14:34:29 [LeeF]
Present +EliasT
14:34:44 [LeeF]
Agenda is swell. Let's do it.
14:35:38 [AndyS]
Can't anyone can email the list (as Henry demo'ed!)
14:35:45 [LeeF]
No minutes public yet from last week, we'll approve them next week
14:37:25 [LeeF]
Daylight time changes before next meeting -- for now we'll keep the meeting at 14:30Z
14:37:33 [LeeF]
Next meeting: October 31, 14:30Z
14:38:29 [LeeF]
AndyS: not available the week of the 7th (ISWC) but available the 14th
14:38:39 [LeeF]
LeeF: availble the 7th but not the 14th (SWEO IG F2F)
14:38:46 [LeeF]
PatH: available
14:39:01 [LeeF]
EliasT: available both
14:39:15 [LeeF]
AndyS: EricP probably not available on the 14th
14:39:19 [LeeF]
kendallclark: available both
14:39:27 [LeeF]
we'll probably meet both dates even with small crews
14:40:04 [LeeF]
Next meeting: October 31, 14:30Z, AndyS to scribe
14:40:06 [kendallclark]
zakim, take up next agendum
14:40:06 [Zakim]
agendum 1. "convene, agenda comments, roll call, minutes, next meeting, recruit scribe" taken up [from kendallclark]
14:40:14 [kendallclark]
zakim, close agendum 1
14:40:14 [Zakim]
agendum 1, convene, agenda comments, roll call, minutes, next meeting, recruit scribe, closed
14:40:15 [kendallclark]
zakim, take up next agendum
14:40:16 [Zakim]
I see 4 items remaining on the agenda; the next one is
14:40:17 [Zakim]
2. action items [from kendallclark]
14:40:19 [Zakim]
agendum 2. "action items" taken up [from kendallclark]
14:40:49 [LeeF]
ACTION: FredZ to repost pointers to previous arguments for curlies on OPTIZONAL LHS [DONE]
14:41:03 [LeeF]
ACTION: LeeF and EliasT to summarize open SPARQL protocol issues and propose resolutions in email to WG [DONE]
14:41:13 [LeeF]
ACTION: PatH to draft replacement vanilla entailment section for WG consideration [CONTINUES]
14:41:23 [LeeF]
ACTION: KendallC to close formsOfDistinct issue [CONTINUES]
14:41:34 [LeeF]
ACTION: PatH to review the proposed tests in http:// and say yay or nay [CONTINUES]
14:41:43 [kendallclark]
zakim, take up next agendum
14:41:43 [Zakim]
agendum 3. "expressions in select" taken up [from kendallclark]
14:42:52 [Zakim]
14:43:02 [ericP]
zakim, ??P32 is me
14:43:02 [Zakim]
+ericP; got it
14:43:04 [LeeF]
Present +EricP
14:43:07 [LeeF]
Regrets -EricP
14:43:12 [jeen]
jeen has joined #dawg
14:43:23 [ericP]
Regards: +EricP
14:43:53 [Zakim]
14:44:00 [jeen]
Zakim, [IPcaller] is me
14:44:00 [Zakim]
+jeen; got it
14:44:06 [LeeF]
Present +jeen
14:45:21 [LeeF]
LeeF: consensus seems to be that people feel the need for expressions in the select list, but closing/postponing this issue won't preclude future work by a future group
14:46:10 [LeeF]
PROPOSED: to close the puncutationSyntax issue
14:46:22 [kendallclark]
a basic scribe need! :)
14:46:50 [LeeF]
RESOLVED, FredZ (Oracle) abstaining
14:46:58 [kendallclark]
zakim, take up next agendum
14:46:58 [Zakim]
agendum 4. "scope of filter" taken up [from kendallclark]
14:47:43 [LeeF]
kendallclark: last week, the discussion about filter scope shifted quickly from FILTERs to how to determine the first argument to OPTIONAL
14:48:23 [kendallclark]
14:48:42 [kendallclark]
Andy's reply:
14:48:42 [kendallclark]
14:48:51 [LeeF]
-> contains some test cases about the scope and order of FILTER
14:49:24 [LeeF]
AndyS: dawg-filter-scope-003 is more about the execution order than about the scope of filters per se
14:49:52 [LeeF]
AndyS: Lee's design would be consistent with the proposed algebra change
14:51:19 [EliasT]
EliasT has joined #dawg
14:51:58 [kendallclark]
zakim, who's on the phone?
14:51:58 [Zakim]
On the phone I see LeeF, AndyS, Kendall_Clark, SimonR, PatH, ericP, jeen
14:52:16 [LeeF]
ericP: can't pass the tests without writing new code because I have variables in scope for the inner group
14:53:08 [kendallclark]
cute :)
14:54:13 [ericP]
LeeF, i think kendallclark asked you to scribe something about 001 and 004, but i don't know what
14:54:24 [kendallclark]
PROPOSAL: to approve dawg-filter-scope-001, 002, dawg-filter-order-001
14:54:38 [ericP]
zakim, who is making noise
14:54:38 [Zakim]
I don't understand 'who is making noise', ericP
14:54:43 [kendallclark]
zakim, who's making noise?
14:54:44 [LeeF]
zakim, who's speaking?
14:55:00 [Zakim]
kendallclark, listening for 10 seconds I heard sound from the following: jeen (18%), AndyS (33%)
14:55:16 [Zakim]
LeeF, listening for 10 seconds I heard sound from the following: 7 (4%), jeen (13%), AndyS (29%), Kendall_Clark (36%), ericP (13%)
14:55:29 [AndyS]
That better? I'm muted here now.
14:55:32 [jeen]
zakim, mute me
14:55:32 [Zakim]
jeen should now be muted
14:56:05 [LeeF]
PROPOSAL: to approve dawg-filter-scope-001, 002, dawg-filter-order-001
14:56:13 [EliasT]
14:56:18 [LeeF]
14:56:18 [jeen]
14:56:22 [ericP]
14:56:41 [LeeF]
ACTION: LeeF to throw said 3 approved tests into the approved bucket
14:57:43 [kendallclark]
ACTION KendallC: the wee, lost filter tests should be put to the question (re:
14:58:54 [ericP]
4.7: [[@@Filters apply to the whole of the group they are in. Canonically, all matchingis done, then filters are applied. Implementations wil optimize this.]]
14:58:56 [kendallclark]
zakim, take up next agendum
14:58:56 [Zakim]
agendum 5. "operational definition of SPARQL algebra" taken up [from kendallclark]
14:59:09 [kendallclark]
14:59:18 [LeeF]
ericP, needs to specifically say the *innermost* group
15:01:31 [LeeF]
AndyS: bottom-up algebra approach in -- document changes would be rewriting definitions and formally defining join and leftjoin for SPARQL (slightly different from relational algebra)
15:02:12 [ericP]
AndyS, do you mind if i patch the @@ to include "innermost"?
15:02:25 [LeeF]
LeeF: i think this makes it clearer, addresses some concerns of the community, easier to reason over
15:02:32 [LeeF]
SimonR: I think this is a hue improvement
15:03:10 [LeeF]
AndyS: Wanted to give anyone who has objections a chance to raise them; it is a significant change, and so I want people to be able to voice concerns before we go too far down this road. In particular, I'd like to hear from Fred
15:03:34 [AndyS]
EricP : innermost isn't clear to me. Seems to be the most deeply nested not "same level".
15:04:31 [LeeF]
kendallclark: there's a new document from the Chileans trying to work out formal semantics for SPARQL. they claim to formalize the semantics w/o changing the semantics. Would it be worth having this group of people review the changes we are making here?
15:08:24 [kendallclark]
zakim, take up next agendum
15:08:32 [ericP]
The way we generally handle the ACTION on folks who aren't here is to ACTION some other poor shmuck to pester them
15:08:48 [kendallclark]
zakim, take up next agendum
15:09:16 [Zakim]
I do not see any non-closed agenda items, kendallclark
15:09:36 [Zakim]
I do not see any non-closed agenda items, kendallclark
15:09:36 [LeeF]
AndyS, "the smallest group which contains the FILTER" -- isn't that accurate ?
15:09:59 [ericP]
LeeF, perhaps s/smallest/innermost/ ?
15:10:13 [LeeF]
ericP, was trying to avoid innermost since Andy wasn't happy with it :)
15:10:34 [patH]
Where are these new Chilean documents? Are they public?
15:10:38 [AndyS]
By this point, it's going to probably better be expressed relative to the algebra and syntax words may be confusing.
15:10:43 [LeeF]
ericP: how do we communicate in the test materials that a certain test requires certain extensibility in a SPARQL engine?
15:10:50 [SimonR]
(Clattery keyboard!)
15:10:57 [kendallclark]
path: i'm sending it to the list now
15:11:12 [patH]
15:11:44 [LeeF]
AndyS, OK I'll be glad to be a word-reviewer rather than a word-smither of this particular wording :)
15:12:08 [AndyS]
yes - it's only an @@ for me!
15:12:30 [LeeF]
ericP: i proposed mf:requires such that FOO mf:requires xsd:someType means that the test requires support for the type
15:14:36 [kendallclark]
(email w/ chilean semantics paper sent to list)
15:14:59 [LeeF]
AndyS: harder to talk about tests in the implementation report without having URIs for them
15:17:33 [jeen]
15:17:54 [jeen]
zakim unmute me
15:17:59 [jeen]
zakim, unmute me
15:17:59 [Zakim]
jeen should no longer be muted
15:19:53 [AndyS]
Woks for me - I'll go and impl new algebra :-)
15:20:00 [SimonR]
Maybe giving the tests an rdf:type instead, so that classifying something as in a partcular manifest and required by a particular extension could be done using subclassing.
15:20:12 [LeeF]
PROPOSED to adjourn early
15:20:14 [LeeF]
15:20:16 [LeeF]
15:20:28 [LeeF]
15:20:35 [LeeF]
RRSAgent, stop