RDF Data Access Working group (31 Oct 2006) -- 31 Oct 2006

<kendallclark> damn

<kendallclark> i think i have to tell it something special because of time change in the US :(

<LeeF> time change?

<LeeF> Sounds like a problem for ericP

<kendallclark> yeah

41 mins is 15:00Z which is neither old nor new - we aren't DBWG are we?

<kendallclark> No

<kendallclark> -sigh-

<kendallclark> that ain't gonna work

<kendallclark> damn, it doesn't have a big window, does it

<kendallclark> Ok, someone's trying to find the person to fix this...

<kendallclark> Sorry guys

<kendallclark> is eric around?

Just msg'ed him

<LeeF> AndyS --

<LeeF> after my reservations yesterday on IRC

<LeeF> i thought more about the filter + optional problem

<LeeF> and agree that it is a problem

<LeeF> and i think that your approach to it

Eric is on the case.

<LeeF> while a bit mucky to formalize

<LeeF> is the correct approach

<LeeF> (i spent some time trying to come up with queries where you would *want* the strict-group-scope semantics, and convinced myself that such cases don't exist)

LeeF: see this AM's formalization - explicit muckiness! - on comments. Whether it works or not remains to be seen but the idea might have some milage.

<LeeF> yes, i saw it :-)

<LeeF> it's along the lines of what we scribbled in IRC yesterday when SteveH was around

Did you come with any examples?

<LeeF> Examples? Bah humbug! I'm really a theory wanker at heart ;-p

<tlr> Here's your call

<LeeF> thanks, tlr!

<tlr> Note that it's a different code

<ericP> before folks try this, let's see if ...

<LeeF> oh whoops

<ericP> rats, too late

<LeeF> sorry :(

<ericP> np

<ericP> you can hang up with no consequence

<LeeF> should I?

<ericP> no, wait

<LeeF> hehe

<ericP> let's go with a known quantity

<ericP> folks can ask i irc for the code

<ericP> could try this:

<kendallclark> so are we using the new or the old code?

<LeeF> new code

<ericP> no worky

<tlr> old code no worky?

<LeeF> Andy and I are on ok

<LeeF> with 83261

<ericP> yeah, just trying to see if i could avoid a new code for people not on irc

<scribe> Scribe: Andy Seaborne

<scribe> ScribeNick: AndyS

<kendallclark> tons of static when eric speaks

<kendallclark> speaking for UMD, I care vastly more about having the semantics look like they're starting to look *now* than I am about all the entailment stuff, which I still think we should just punt on.

{ patterns, filters, patterns OPTIONAL { P } } =>{ { group(join patterns, filters) } OPTIONAL { P } }

<ericP> minutes from 2 weeks ago

<LeeF> { P1 F1 OPTIONAL { P2 } P3 F2 }

<kendallclark> I propose we approve those minutes.

<kendallclark> Someone 2nd?

<kendallclark> 2nd'd, LeeF

10 01{ ( ( join P1 where F1 ) LeftJoin/OPTIONAL { P2 } ) join P3 where F2 }

<kendallclark> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-dawg/2006OctDec/att-0103/24-dawg-minutes.html

<kendallclark> APPROVED as true record of 17 Oct meeting

<scribe> ACTION: PatH to draft replacement vanilla entailment section for WG consideration [CONTINUES] [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2006/10/31-dawg-minutes.html#action01]

<scribe> ACTION: KendallC to close formsOfDistinct issue [CONTINUES] [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2006/10/31-dawg-minutes.html#action02]

<scribe> ACTION: PatH to review the proposed tests in http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-dawg/2006JulSep/0169 and say yay or nay [CONTINUES] [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2006/10/31-dawg-minutes.html#action03]

<scribe> ACTION: KendallC to remember that the wee, lost filter tests should be put to the question (re: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-dawg/2006OctDec/0099.html [CONTINUES] [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2006/10/31-dawg-minutes.html#action04]

<scribe> ACTION: LeeF to throw said 3 approved tests into the approved bucket [DONE] [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2006/10/31-dawg-minutes.html#action05]

Next time: regrets: AndyS (ISWC)

<ericP> SteveH, we're using a different bridge, 83261

14: 30UTC

<RalphS> you guys want your regular telecon code back?

<kendallclark> doesn't matter for th is week

<kendallclark> but for next week, ykes, please

<kendallclark> DST screwed us (me) up...

<RalphS> DAWG is the only WG who doesn't shift their telecon time

<RalphS> (but that's an old discussion we don't need to repeat her)

<RalphS> we'll sort it out for next week

<LeeF> ACTION: LeeF to reply to Patrick Shironoshita's email re: OPTIONAL and UNION [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2006/10/31-dawg-minutes.html#action06]

Also: there was a comments comment on test suite. I can reply to that if people are happy

http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-dawg/2006OctDec/0068.html

<scribe> ACTION: AndyS Reply based on http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-dawg/2006OctDec/0068.html [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2006/10/31-dawg-minutes.html#action07]

Domain is done naturally by the algebra ; as are dups and union (Chilean cardinality) modulo BGP and the blank node mapping function

<kendallclark> thx

<kendallclark> fwiw, +1 re: enough consensus

<LeeF> +20 re: enough consensus

<LeeF> kendallclark -- when you asked jeen last week if he wanted to keep on w/ test suite responsibilities, what did he answer?

<kendallclark> "yes, but i don't have time"

<kendallclark> the job is open IMO

<LeeF> thanks

<SteveH> I could probably re-assume test stuff, though my time is a bit patchy

<LeeF> seconded!

<LeeF> ;-)

<kendallclark> Yay!

<kendallclark> we accept, Steve :)

<SteveH> um, woo :-|

<SteveH> regrets for next week BTW, ISWC

Meeting next time at 14:30UTC on 7/Nov

Scribe next time: LeeF

<kendallclark> LeeF to scribe

ADJOURNED

- DRAFT -

RDF Data Access Working group (31 Oct 2006)

31 Oct 2006

Attendees

Contents

Summary of Action Items

Scribe.perl diagnostic output