IRC log of dawg on 2006-12-12

Timestamps are in UTC.

14:22:00 [RRSAgent]

RRSAgent has joined #dawg

14:22:00 [RRSAgent]

logging to http://www.w3.org/2006/12/12-dawg-irc

14:22:05 [Zakim]

Zakim has joined #dawg

14:22:17 [LeeF]

zakim, this will be DAWG

14:22:17 [Zakim]

ok, LeeF; I see SW_DAWG()9:30AM scheduled to start in 8 minutes

14:22:55 [LeeF]

agenda+ Convene

14:23:03 [LeeF]

agenda+ Review ACTION Items

14:23:10 [LeeF]

agenda+ Operator mapping

14:23:16 [LeeF]

agenda+ Bob MacGregor's comments on UNSAID

14:23:20 [kendallclark]

kendallclark has joined #dawg

14:23:22 [LeeF]

agenda+ FILTER interaction with OPTIONAL/LeftJoin

14:24:23 [LeeF]

Meeting: DAWG Weekly

14:24:34 [LeeF]

Chair: LeeF

14:24:44 [LeeF]

Regrets: jeen

14:27:43 [sdas2]

sdas2 has joined #DAWG

14:28:54 [Zakim]

SW_DAWG()9:30AM has now started

14:29:01 [Zakim]

+[IBMCambridge]

14:29:06 [LeeF]

zakim, IBMCambridge is me

14:29:06 [Zakim]

+LeeF; got it

14:30:11 [Zakim]

+??P1

14:30:15 [AndyS]

zakim, ??P1 is me

14:30:15 [Zakim]

+AndyS; got it

14:30:20 [Zakim]

+??P2

14:30:39 [ericP]

zakim, ??P2 is me

14:30:39 [Zakim]

+ericP; got it

14:31:00 [Zakim]

+ +1.603.459.aaaa

14:31:24 [Zakim]

+Kendall_Clark

14:31:46 [LeeF]

zakim, aaaa is Souri

14:31:46 [Zakim]

+Souri; got it

14:32:02 [kendallclark]

zakim, please mute me

14:32:02 [Zakim]

Kendall_Clark should now be muted

14:32:06 [LeeF]

zakim, Souri is sdas2

14:32:06 [Zakim]

+sdas2; got it

14:33:48 [LeeF]

zakim, next agendum

14:33:48 [Zakim]

agendum 1. "Convene" taken up [from LeeF]

14:34:03 [kendallclark]

I'll scribe

14:34:10 [AndyS]

zakim, who is on the phone?

14:34:10 [Zakim]

On the phone I see LeeF, AndyS, ericP, sdas2, Kendall_Clark (muted)

14:34:12 [kendallclark]

yay, me!

14:34:16 [LeeF]

Scribe: kendallclark

14:34:21 [kendallclark]

Scribe: kendallclark

14:34:30 [kendallclark]

+1

14:34:31 [LeeF]

-> http://www.w3.org/2006/12/05-dawg-minutes.html

14:34:36 [Zakim]

+SimonR

14:34:58 [kendallclark]

PROPOSED to approve those minutes for last week...APPROVED

14:35:36 [kendallclark]

Next meeting: 19 Dec, 2006, usual time & place, EricP to scribe

14:35:49 [LeeF]

zakim, close this agendum

14:35:49 [Zakim]

agendum 1 closed

14:35:50 [Zakim]

I see 4 items remaining on the agenda; the next one is

14:35:52 [Zakim]

2. Review ACTION Items [from LeeF]

14:36:26 [kendallclark]

CVS still broken... alas

14:36:34 [kendallclark]

zakim, unmute me

14:36:34 [Zakim]

Kendall_Clark should no longer be muted

14:37:38 [kendallclark]

zakim, please mute me

14:37:38 [Zakim]

Kendall_Clark should now be muted

14:37:58 [kendallclark]

ACTION: Jeen propose test suite process (not do it all).

14:38:00 [kendallclark]

CONTINUE

14:38:05 [LeeF]

agenda+ ericP's response to http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-dawg-comments/2006Nov/0004.html

14:38:07 [kendallclark]

ACTION: LeeF to review rq24-algebra

14:38:12 [kendallclark]

CONTINUE

14:38:12 [LeeF]

zakim, next agendum

14:38:12 [Zakim]

agendum 2. "Review ACTION Items" taken up [from LeeF]

14:38:17 [LeeF]

zakim, next agendum

14:38:17 [Zakim]

agendum 2 was just opened, LeeF

14:38:21 [kendallclark]

ACTION: KendallC to close formsOfDistinct issue

14:38:22 [kendallclark]

CONTINUE

14:38:24 [LeeF]

zakim, close agendum 2

14:38:24 [Zakim]

agendum 2, Review ACTION Items, closed

14:38:25 [Zakim]

I see 4 items remaining on the agenda; the next one is

14:38:26 [Zakim]

3. Operator mapping [from LeeF]

14:38:27 [LeeF]

zakim, next agendum

14:38:27 [Zakim]

agendum 3. "Operator mapping" taken up [from LeeF]

14:38:35 [kendallclark]

ACTION: KendallC to remember that the wee, lost filter tests should be put

14:38:35 [kendallclark]

to the question

14:38:38 [kendallclark]

CONTINUE

14:38:46 [kendallclark]

ACTION: PatH to change the entailment section around to talk about SPARQL

14:38:47 [kendallclark]

first, then more general conditions in a normative appendix

14:38:48 [kendallclark]

CONTINUE

14:38:58 [kendallclark]

ACTION: ericP to seek clarification on

14:38:59 [kendallclark]

http://www.w3.org/mod/20061110085518567.00000002912@bmacgregor1

14:39:01 [kendallclark]

CONTINUE

14:39:47 [patH]

patH has joined #dawg

14:40:16 [Zakim]

+PatH

14:40:27 [kendallclark]

Attendees: +PatH

14:40:43 [LeeF]

We're talking about the operator mapping tables at: http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/DataAccess/rq23/rq24.html#OperatorMapping

14:41:06 [patH]

ok.

14:41:16 [LeeF]

ericP on operator mappings:

14:41:16 [LeeF]

http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-dawg/2006OctDec/0190.html

14:45:01 [SimonR]

Is "simple literal" official RDF yet, or is it still just an informal name for a plain literal without a specified language?

14:45:13 [ericP]

http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/DataAccess/rq23/rq24#OperatorMapping [[

14:45:15 [AndyS]

http://www.w3.org/TR/rdf-mt/#DtypeRules

14:45:24 [ericP]

When selecting the operator definition for a given set of parameters, the definition with the most specific parameters applies. For instance, when evaluating xsd:integer = xsd:signedInt, the definition for = with two numeric parameters applies, rather than the one with two RDF terms. The table is arranged so that upper-most viable candiate is the most specific.

14:45:26 [AndyS]

rules xsd 1a and 1b

14:45:29 [ericP]

]]

14:46:01 [LeeF]

SimonR, in 11.1 our spec defines "simple literal denotes a plain literal with no language tag."

14:46:15 [SimonR]

Thank you!

14:46:27 [LeeF]

yw

14:49:10 [patH]

yes, andy Ur right

14:49:10 [LeeF]

PROPOSED: accept the changes to the operator mapping table suggested in http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-dawg/2006OctDec/0190.html

14:49:15 [ericP]

[[

14:49:17 [ericP]

>A = B simple literal simple literal

14:49:17 [ericP]

> op:numeric-equal(fn:compare(A, B), 0)

14:49:17 [ericP]

>A = B xsd:string xsd:string

14:49:17 [ericP]

> op:numeric-equal(fn:compare(STR(A), STR(B)), 0)

14:49:18 [LeeF]

seconded by AndyS

14:49:19 [ericP]

>A != B simple literal simple literal

14:49:22 [ericP]

> fn:not(op:numeric-equal(fn:compare(A, B), 0))

14:49:24 [ericP]

>A != B xsd:string xsd:string

14:49:27 [ericP]

> fn:not(op:numeric-equal(fn:compare(STR(A), STR(B)), 0))

14:49:29 [ericP]

]]

14:49:42 [LeeF]

APPROVEd, no objections, no abstentions

14:49:48 [LeeF]

zakim, close agendum

14:49:48 [Zakim]

I don't understand 'close agendum', LeeF

14:50:08 [kendallclark]

who's that action on?

14:50:25 [kendallclark]

ACTION EricP: to sort out some string literal thing for the operator table

14:50:34 [kendallclark]

ok, not the most accurate action, but I missed some of the discussion

14:50:36 [LeeF]

zakim, close agendum 2

14:50:36 [Zakim]

agendum 2, Review ACTION Items, closed

14:50:37 [Zakim]

I see 4 items remaining on the agenda; the next one is

14:50:38 [Zakim]

3. Operator mapping [from LeeF]

14:50:40 [LeeF]

zakim, next agendum

14:50:40 [Zakim]

agendum 4. "Bob MacGregor's comments on UNSAID" taken up [from LeeF]

14:51:52 [LeeF]

-> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-dawg/2006OctDec/0191.html

14:52:11 [ericP]

Andy: not sure that simple literal arguments to fn:compare pass it an xsd datatype

14:52:24 [ericP]

... not sure that we need the STR()s

14:52:25 [ericP]

.

14:52:42 [kendallclark]

btw, McGregor's demonstrably wrong about large scale reasoning systems. They don't *all* or even mostly assume UNA and CWA. That's just REALLY dumb.

14:53:06 [AndyS]

quite

14:53:18 [patH]

Yes, he does tend to overstate his case. But he does havea case.

14:53:45 [kendallclark]

well, not based on THAT claim. It's silly.

14:53:57 [SimonR]

I'd say it's a lot easier to add UNSAID than to remove it. RDF's deliberately designed for *minimum* useful expressiveness.

14:54:23 [SimonR]

(At a later date or in an extension, that is.)

14:55:28 [kendallclark]

I propose that we tell McGregory (and Axel!) thanks but no thanks.

14:56:25 [kendallclark]

zakim, unmute me

14:56:25 [Zakim]

Kendall_Clark should no longer be muted

14:56:28 [AndyS]

I see no new information. Here, "Closed" for me means "closed for v1" = "posponed"

14:57:11 [kendallclark]

zakim, mute me

14:57:11 [Zakim]

Kendall_Clark should now be muted

14:57:26 [kendallclark]

also a similarity with Mark Baker

14:57:55 [kendallclark]

zakim, unmute me

14:57:55 [Zakim]

Kendall_Clark should no longer be muted

14:59:04 [kendallclark]

FWIW

14:59:06 [kendallclark]

zakim, mute me

14:59:06 [Zakim]

Kendall_Clark should now be muted

14:59:36 [kendallclark]

EricP: on behalf of the working group...

14:59:40 [kendallclark]

heh, just kidding!

14:59:43 [LeeF]

zakim, close current agendum

14:59:43 [Zakim]

I don't understand 'close current agendum', LeeF

14:59:49 [LeeF]

zakim, close agendum 3

14:59:50 [Zakim]

agendum 3, Operator mapping, closed

14:59:51 [kendallclark]

yay!!!

14:59:51 [Zakim]

I see 3 items remaining on the agenda; the next one is

14:59:52 [Zakim]

4. Bob MacGregor's comments on UNSAID [from LeeF]

14:59:54 [kendallclark]

do you promise?

14:59:55 [LeeF]

zakim, close agendum 4

14:59:55 [Zakim]

agendum 4, Bob MacGregor's comments on UNSAID, closed

14:59:56 [Zakim]

I see 2 items remaining on the agenda; the next one is

14:59:57 [Zakim]

5. FILTER interaction with OPTIONAL/LeftJoin [from LeeF]

15:00:03 [LeeF]

zakim, next agendum

15:00:03 [Zakim]

agendum 5. "FILTER interaction with OPTIONAL/LeftJoin" taken up [from LeeF]

15:00:39 [LeeF]

-> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-dawg-comments/2006Dec/0014.html

15:01:21 [LeeF]

15:01:21 [LeeF]

{

15:01:21 [LeeF]

?x foaf:age ?age .

15:01:21 [LeeF]

OPTIONAL { ?x ex:salary ?salary . FILTER (?age > 18 ) .

15:01:21 [LeeF]

?x foaf:name ?name

15:01:22 [LeeF]

}

15:02:09 [sdas2]

missing }

15:02:15 [LeeF]

whoops =)

15:03:14 [AndyS]

{ ?x :q ?v . OPTIONAL { ?x :p ?w } }

15:03:15 [AndyS]

{ ?x :q ?v . OPTIONAL { ?y :p ?w FILTER(?x = ?y) } }

15:04:58 [LeeF]

10 01{ ?v :q ?x . OPTIONAL { ?w :p ?y FILTER(?x = ?y) } }

15:05:51 [SimonR]

D'oh!

15:06:49 [patH]

sounds like we all violently agree.

15:10:24 [LeeF]

PROPOSED: FILTERs in the right-hand side of an OPTIONAL are scoped to include the left-hand side as well

15:10:41 [LeeF]

seconded.

15:11:05 [kendallclark]

Souri abstaining

15:11:11 [LeeF]

approved, souri abstaining

15:11:19 [LeeF]

zakim, close agendum 5

15:11:19 [Zakim]

agendum 5, FILTER interaction with OPTIONAL/LeftJoin, closed

15:11:21 [Zakim]

I see 1 item remaining on the agenda:

15:11:21 [Zakim]

6. ericP's response to http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-dawg-comments/2006Nov/0004.html [from LeeF]

15:11:22 [LeeF]

zakim, next agendum

15:11:22 [Zakim]

agendum 6. "ericP's response to http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-dawg-comments/2006Nov/0004.html" taken up [from LeeF]

15:11:56 [ericP]

[[

15:11:56 [ericP]

The faceted navigation product that my company sells generates RDF

15:11:56 [ericP]

queries that cannot be expressed in SPARQL because they frequently

15:11:56 [ericP]

use an OR connective that includes both statements and filters within

15:11:56 [ericP]

the disjuncts.

15:11:59 [ericP]

]]

15:12:01 [ericP]

- example of such a query not expressible in SPARQL?

15:13:23 [ericP]

recursive syntax

15:13:23 [ericP]

- do you mean SUBSELECTs?

15:13:52 [sdas2]

The link does not work for me.

15:14:28 [LeeF]

-> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-dawg-comments/2006Nov/0004.html

15:14:31 [LeeF]

that one, Souri ?

15:14:35 [ericP]

closed world semantics

15:14:35 [ericP]

- specific examples that are specifically precluded by the open-world semantics

15:14:44 [kendallclark]

*closed*-world semantics are impractical?

15:14:50 [kendallclark]

isn't the the opposite of what one usually hears?

15:14:52 [sdas2]

nevermind

15:14:54 [kendallclark]

ah good :)

15:15:13 [sdas2]

Thanks Lee

15:15:18 [LeeF]

yw

15:15:40 [LeeF]

[[

15:15:45 [LeeF]

- The UNBOUND operator is inherently procedural in a fully-expressive

15:15:45 [LeeF]

logic language. In PowerLoom, we added a "Prolog-mode" (we didn't

15:15:45 [LeeF]

call it that) when we used operators that couldn't be reordered by

15:15:45 [LeeF]

the query optimizer. The WHERE/FILTER blotch is inherently procedural,

15:15:45 [LeeF]

which solves the problem, but in a bad way.

15:15:46 [LeeF]

]]

15:16:59 [ericP]

If my recollection SPARQL omits n-ary computed predicates (implementing

15:17:01 [ericP]

only n-ary functions).

15:17:55 [LeeF]

zakim, close agendum 5

15:17:55 [Zakim]

agendum 5, FILTER interaction with OPTIONAL/LeftJoin, closed

15:17:57 [Zakim]

I see 1 item remaining on the agenda:

15:17:58 [Zakim]

6. ericP's response to http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-dawg-comments/2006Nov/0004.html [from LeeF]

15:18:03 [LeeF]

zakim, close agendum 6

15:18:03 [Zakim]

agendum 6, ericP's response to http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-dawg-comments/2006Nov/0004.html, closed

15:18:05 [Zakim]

I see nothing remaining on the agenda

15:18:14 [SimonR]

Didn't the SWBP group publish a Note about how do deal with N-ary predicates...? (Can't recall for certain.)

15:18:23 [SimonR]

...to deal...

15:18:24 [patH]

yes it did.

15:18:25 [kendallclark]

and for doing a good job today :)

15:19:11 [Zakim]

-sdas2

15:19:14 [SimonR]

I think it wouldn't hurt to have, say, syntactic sugar for something useful like N-ary predicates. We do enough for collections and containers, for instance.

15:19:16 [Zakim]

-LeeF

15:19:25 [LeeF]

kendallclark, two things:

15:19:26 [kendallclark]

ericp: will you do the minutes magic so I can prep them?

15:19:30 [LeeF]

1) ...

15:19:32 [LeeF]

that was one

15:19:38 [ericP]

zakim, please draft minutes

15:19:38 [Zakim]

I don't understand 'please draft minutes', ericP

15:19:44 [AndyS]

rrsagent, please draft minutes

15:19:44 [RRSAgent]

I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2006/12/12-dawg-minutes.html AndyS

15:19:46 [LeeF]

2) can we setup a time to talk on the phone about process stuff ?

15:19:58 [AndyS]

rrsagent, please make logs world-visible

15:20:02 [patH]

zakim, we hate you.

15:20:02 [Zakim]

I don't understand 'we hate you', patH

15:20:14 [kendallclark]

Leef: sure... you can just call me during the day whenever

15:20:15 [Zakim]

-PatH

15:20:18 [kendallclark]

or we can do it n ow?

15:20:25 [kendallclark]

i'm still on thecall... can you call back?

15:20:29 [Zakim]

-SimonR

15:20:32 [kendallclark]

i can do like 20 minutes right now

15:20:57 [LeeF]

give me a direct number and I'll give you a call

15:21:12 [Zakim]

-Kendall_Clark

15:21:15 [Zakim]

-AndyS

15:21:17 [Zakim]

-ericP

15:21:18 [Zakim]

SW_DAWG()9:30AM has ended

15:21:19 [Zakim]

Attendees were LeeF, AndyS, ericP, +1.603.459.aaaa, Kendall_Clark, sdas2, SimonR, PatH

15:21:21 [AndyS]

AndyS has left #dawg

15:26:25 [SteveH]

SteveH has joined #dawg

17:24:14 [Zakim]

Zakim has left #dawg