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
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]
14:29:06 [LeeF]
zakim, IBMCambridge is me
14:29:06 [Zakim]
+LeeF; got it
14:30:11 [Zakim]
14:30:15 [AndyS]
zakim, ??P1 is me
14:30:15 [Zakim]
+AndyS; got it
14:30:20 [Zakim]
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]
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]
14:34:31 [LeeF]
14:34:36 [Zakim]
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]
14:38:05 [LeeF]
agenda+ ericP's response to
14:38:07 [kendallclark]
ACTION: LeeF to review rq24-algebra
14:38:12 [kendallclark]
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]
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]
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]
14:38:58 [kendallclark]
ACTION: ericP to seek clarification on
14:38:59 [kendallclark]
14:39:01 [kendallclark]
14:39:47 [patH]
patH has joined #dawg
14:40:16 [Zakim]
14:40:27 [kendallclark]
Attendees: +PatH
14:40:43 [LeeF]
We're talking about the operator mapping tables at:
14:41:06 [patH]
14:41:16 [LeeF]
ericP on operator mappings:
14:41:16 [LeeF]
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] [[
14:45:15 [AndyS]
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]
14:49:10 [patH]
yes, andy Ur right
14:49:10 [LeeF]
PROPOSED: accept the changes to the operator mapping table suggested in
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]
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]
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]
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]
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]
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]
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]
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 [from LeeF]
15:11:22 [LeeF]
zakim, next agendum
15:11:22 [Zakim]
agendum 6. "ericP's response to" 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]
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]
15:14:54 [kendallclark]
ah good :)
15:15:13 [sdas2]
Thanks Lee
15:15:18 [LeeF]
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 [from LeeF]
15:18:03 [LeeF]
zakim, close agendum 6
15:18:03 [Zakim]
agendum 6, ericP's response to, 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] deal...
15:18:24 [patH]
yes it did.
15:18:25 [kendallclark]
and for doing a good job today :)
15:19:11 [Zakim]
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]
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 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]
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]
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]
15:21:15 [Zakim]
15:21:17 [Zakim]
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