14:21:06 RRSAgent has joined #dawg 14:21:06 logging to http://www.w3.org/2007/03/13-dawg-irc 14:21:13 zakim, this will be DAWG 14:21:13 ok, LeeF; I see SW_DAWG()9:30AM scheduled to start in 9 minutes 14:21:29 Meeting: RDF DAWG Weekly 14:21:34 Chair: LeeF 14:21:36 Scribe: EricP 14:21:39 Agenda: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-dawg/2007JanMar/0146.html 14:21:45 Regrets: 14:21:50 agenda + convene 14:22:06 agenda + review action items 14:22:15 agenda + unexpected/auto DISTINCT 14:22:25 agenda + normative and informative parts of rq25 14:22:33 agenda + open issues 14:22:37 agenda + last call 14:23:30 SPARQL/Update :: a draft proposal for comment :: http://jena.hpl.hp.com/~afs/SPARQL-Update.html 14:24:06 jeen has joined #dawg 14:24:32 Two editors :-) and we have a need for this soon 14:26:06 zakim, code? 14:26:06 the conference code is 7333 (tel:+1.617.761.6200 tel:+33.4.89.06.34.99 tel:+44.117.370.6152), LeeF 14:26:26 SW_DAWG()9:30AM has now started 14:26:33 +[IBMCambridge] 14:26:42 zakim, IBMCambridge holds LeeF, EliasT 14:26:42 +LeeF, EliasT; got it 14:26:55 +PatH 14:27:20 +??P31 14:27:24 zakim, ??P31 is me 14:27:24 +AndyS; got it 14:27:27 +??P30 14:27:38 Zakim, ??P30 is me 14:27:38 +SimonR; got it 14:27:42 Zakim, please dial ericP-office 14:27:42 ok, ericP; the call is being made 14:27:44 +EricP 14:29:34 +Orri_Erling 14:30:33 ericP has changed the topic to: RDF Data Access Working Group weekly telecon — agenda http://www.w3.org/mid/OFF7EA9239.E611D26C-ON8525729B.001BB7B3-8525729B.001D2E9A@us.ibm.com 14:30:57 +[IPcaller] 14:31:02 Zakim, [IPcaller] is me 14:31:02 +jeen; got it 14:32:33 SteveH, are you going to be able to join us today? 14:32:42 LeeF, yes 14:32:42 EliasT has joined #dawg 14:33:18 +SteveH 14:33:52 Zakim, who's on the phone? 14:33:52 On the phone I see [IBMCambridge], PatH, AndyS, SimonR, EricP, Orri_Erling, jeen, SteveH 14:33:54 [IBMCambridge] has LeeF, EliasT 14:33:54 Agenda: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-dawg/2007JanMar/0146.html 14:34:08 zakim, who's speaking? 14:34:20 LeeF, listening for 12 seconds I heard sound from the following: AndyS (7%), jeen (86%) 14:34:42 Zakim, mute me 14:34:42 jeen should now be muted 14:34:58 zakim, who's speaking? 14:35:10 LeeF, listening for 10 seconds I could not identify any sounds 14:35:44 minutes from 6 mar: http://www.w3.org/2007/03/06-dawg-minutes.html 14:36:11 -> http://www.w3.org/2007/03/06-dawg-minutes minutes from 2007-03-06 14:36:50 minutes look fine to me (sorry I wasn't there) 14:36:53 Second 14:37:13 PROPOSED: approve minutes from 2007-03-06 as a true record of the last meeting 14:37:16 APPROVED 14:37:53 next meeting: 2007-03-20T14:30Z, scribe: EliasT 14:38:15 zakim, take up agendum 2 14:38:16 agendum 2. "review action items" taken up [from LeeF] 14:38:38 ACTION: EricP to add text to spec noting that ORDER BY comparisons may use extended implementations of < that operate on types beyond what's given in the operator table [DONE] 14:38:44 action -1 14:38:53 ACTION: EricP to run the yacker tool over and annotate the existing tests [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2007/03/06-dawg-minutes.html#action03] [CONTINUES] 14:39:01 ACTION: LeeF or EliasT to reply to Bjoern regarding (not) POSTing application/sparql-query documents [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2007/03/06-dawg-minutes.html#action07] [CONTINUES] 14:39:08 ACTION: LeeF to remember that the wee, lost filter tests should be put [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2007/03/06-dawg-minutes.html#action05] [CONTINUES] 14:39:10 zakim, close this agendum 14:39:10 agendum 2 closed 14:39:11 I see 5 items remaining on the agenda; the next one is 14:39:12 1. convene [from LeeF] 14:39:16 zakim, close agendum 1 14:39:16 agendum 1, convene, closed 14:39:17 I see 4 items remaining on the agenda; the next one is 14:39:18 3. unexpected/auto DISTINCT [from LeeF] 14:39:21 zakim, take up agendum 3 14:39:21 agendum 3. "unexpected/auto DISTINCT" taken up [from LeeF] 14:39:43 Eric's summary of the DISTINCT issue: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-dawg/2007JanMar/0147.html 14:39:57 -> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-dawg/2007JanMar/0147 Eric's summary of the DISTINCT issue 14:43:04 LeeF: any epiphones? 14:43:53 SimonR: partial DISTINCTness available via a clever OPTIONAL clause 14:45:39 default keywords 14:45:39 1 ALL DISTINCT 14:45:39 2 ALL DISTINCT, LOOSE 14:45:39 3 LOOSE DISTINCT 14:45:39 4 LOOSE DISTINCT, ALL 14:45:41 5 DISTINCT 14:46:50 zakim, who's on the phone? 14:46:50 On the phone I see [IBMCambridge], PatH, AndyS, SimonR, EricP, Orri_Erling, jeen (muted), SteveH 14:46:53 [IBMCambridge] has LeeF, EliasT 14:47:13 iv_an_ru has joined #dawg 14:48:23 Steve: -1 +.5 -1 +1 -1 14:48:25 Zakim, unmute me 14:48:26 jeen should no longer be muted 14:49:04 Jeen: +1 0 0 0 -1 14:49:32 Souri: +1 0 0 0 -1 14:49:48 Ori: +1 0 0 0 -1 14:50:07 s/Ori/Orri 14:50:18 ericP: +.9 0 -.5 +1 -1 14:50:30 s/Souri: +1 0 0 0 -1// 14:50:43 SimonR: 0 0 0 0 0 14:51:00 AndyS: +1 0 -1 -1 -1 14:51:33 patH: +1 +1 0 0 0 14:52:22 EliasT: +1 0 -1 -1 -1 14:53:35 Souri has joined #dawg 14:54:20 +Souri_Das 14:54:22 LeeF: appears to be leaning towards 1 14:54:47 SteveH: implementing ALL easy (and done) 14:54:57 ... but I lose a lot of performance 14:55:18 ... may implement it, but add a LOOSE keyword 14:55:43 Observation: LOOSE = ALL over an imaginary smaller dataset/graph. 14:57:42 DISTINCT/ALL is sort of the difference between COUNT(PROJECT(X)) and PROJECT(COUNT(X)) -- maybe if projection wasn't tied to the SELECT clause we'd have a better way. (As always, too much change required to explore this....) 14:57:56 Souri: 0 +1 0 0 0 14:58:05 Not always, I think, Andy. Because that smaller imaginary graph wouldnt give you all the real answers. 14:58:42 Simon - agree - there an overly tight binding of project and expressions 14:59:11 observation: noone disliked 2 explictly 14:59:24 Example: 1,1,1,2,2,2,3,3,3 ORDER BY, LIMIT 3 => 1,1,1 ; 1,2,2 ; 1,1,2 ; 1,2,3 ?? 14:59:31 Can we do 2 but not REQUIRE that loose be supported? 15:00:15 patH, an impl of LOOSE = ALL or DISTINCT is valid 15:00:29 It would be the only optional feature in the spec. 15:01:09 And we have no service descriptions :-) 15:04:06 ericP: now +1 on 2 15:04:34 PROPOSE: SPARQL SELECT queries with no keyword following SELECT must return the precise cardinality of duplicate solutions specified by the algebra; SPARQL contains a @@ LOOSE keyword that allows duplicate solutions to be returned with cardinality of at least 1 and no greater than that specified by the algebra 15:04:36 SteveH: query modification to access functionality is fine for me 15:05:36 +1 15:13:26 afs: am reluctant introduce a new keyword for an seemingly arbitrarily selected optimization 15:15:50 Option 1: by default, ALL; only keyword is DISTINCT 15:15:52 ericP: we have a test with counting semantics already. afs, SteveH and I passed it but with different assumptions (1 vs 2) 15:15:58 Option 2: by default, ALL; add a @@ LOOSE keyword 15:16:14 zakim, who's on the phone? 15:16:14 On the phone I see [IBMCambridge], PatH, AndyS, SimonR, EricP, Orri_Erling, jeen, SteveH, Souri_Das 15:16:18 [IBMCambridge] has LeeF, EliasT 15:16:29 EliasT: +1 0 15:16:36 patH: 0 +1 15:16:48 afs: +1 -1 15:16:52 SimonR: 0 0 15:17:01 ericP: 0 +1 15:17:10 orri: +1 0 15:17:16 jeen: +1 0 15:17:22 SteveH: -1 +1 15:17:29 Souri: 0 +1 15:17:38 3 and 3 15:18:27 3 and 4 on +1's :: each has a -1 15:18:46 LeeF: share andy's concearn, but can mark it "at risk" and let implementors define 15:22:33 afs: i think that putting it in and marking it "at risk" is setting the default 15:27:06 out of connearn for Steve-like implementations, i change to: -1 +1 15:29:37 ACTION ericP: draft text about a LOOSE keyword and run it by w3 folks to see if we're abusing the "at risk" mechanism 15:30:03 ACTION: LeeF to seek guidance about at-risk features from the CG 15:30:08 LeeF: if that's acceptable, I will propose 2, otherwise propose 1 15:30:22 zakim, close this agendum 15:30:22 agendum 3 closed 15:30:23 I see 3 items remaining on the agenda; the next one is 15:30:24 4. normative and informative parts of rq25 [from LeeF] 15:31:21 LeeF: KendallC says we should say what's informative vs. normative 15:32:08 ... AndyS said that unless otherwise noted, numbered sections are normative and lettered appendicies are informative 15:32:32 ... i think that 2 and 3 are informative 15:32:51 SimonR has joined #dawg 15:34:38 -SimonR 15:34:48 I just labeled 2 and 3 informative 15:36:19 ACTION: ericP to mark sections 2 and 3 informative, Appendices B and D normative in the text and table of contents and 1.1 document outline 15:37:11 -> http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/DataAccess/issues#nestedOptionals nested optionals 15:37:18 +??P30 15:37:27 Zakim, ??P30 is me 15:37:27 +SimonR; got it 15:37:41 LeeF: I believe that the algebra in the document addresses nested optionals 15:37:49 PROPOSED that the current algebra of rq25 addresses http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/DataAccess/issues#nestedOptionals 15:37:57 AndyS: I think it does 15:38:09 APPROVED 15:38:23 ACTION: LeeF to close nested optionals issue 15:38:36 -> http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/DataAccess/issues#bnodeRef bnodeRef 15:39:00 LeeF: I believe that the current draft addresses this 15:39:05 patH: yes 15:39:17 PROPOSED that the current treatment of bnode labels in rq25 addresses http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/DataAccess/issues#bnodeRef 15:39:29 And we aren't proposing the first part (exposing the labels in results) 15:39:31 APPROVED 15:39:45 ACTION: LeeF to close bnodeRef issue 15:40:13 ACTION: PatH to investigate closing the entailment issue 15:40:16 -> http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/DataAccess/issues#openWorldValueTesting open world issues 15:41:10 Example: "xyz"@en > "abc"@en 15:41:35 -> http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/DataAccess/rq23/rq25#operatorExtensibility 11.3.1 Operator Extensibility 15:42:07 """ 15:42:07 Extended SPARQL implementations may support additional associations between operators and operator functions; this amounts to adding rows to the table above. 15:42:07 """ 15:42:30 Example: "xyz"@en = "abc"@EN 15:42:36 Example: "abc"@en = "abc"@EN 15:43:35 -Souri_Das 15:43:39 (Say, weren't language tags case-sensitive...?) 15:43:58 "abc"@en = "abc"@EN 15:43:59 I think RDF C&AS says they are case insensitive 15:44:26 -> http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/DataAccess/rq23/rq25#func-RDFterm-equal 11.4.10 RDFterm-equal 15:44:36 -> http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/DataAccess/rq23/rq25#func-RDFterm-equal 15:45:44 "Plain literals have a lexical form and optionally a language tag as defined by [RFC-3066], normalized to lowercase." 15:46:04 "Note: The case normalization of language tags is part of the description of the abstract syntax, and consequently the abstract behaviour of RDF applications. It does not constrain an RDF implementation to actually normalize the case. Crucially, the result of comparing two language tags should not be sensitive to the case of the original input." 15:46:31 from -> http://www.w3.org/TR/rdf-concepts/#section-Literal-Equality RDF C&AS 15:46:38 { "abc"@en = "abc"@EN } => { "abc"@en = "abc"@en } 15:49:04 """ 15:49:05 11.3.1 Operator Extensibility 15:49:05 15:49:05 Extended SPARQL implementations may support additional associations between operators and operator functions; this amounts to adding rows to the table above. No additional operator support may yield a result that replaces any result other than a type error in an unextended implementation. The consequence of this rule is that extended SPARQL implementations will produce at least the same solutions as an unextended implementation, and may, for some queries, produce more 15:49:07 """ 15:49:28 [[ 15:49:29 SPARQL language extensions may provide additional associations between operators and operator functions; this amounts to adding rows to the table above. No additional operator may yield a result that replaces any result other than a type error in the above table. The consequence of this rule is that SPARQL extensions will produce at least the same solutions as an unextended implementation, and may, for some queries, produce more solutions. 15:49:36 ]] 15:50:01 ""No additional operator may yield a result that replaces any result other than a type error in the above table."" 15:51:51 PROPOSED that the text in 11.3.1 Operator Extensibility in rq25 addresses http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/DataAccess/issues#openWorldValueTesting 15:51:59 +1 15:52:23 APPROVED: AndyS and patH abstaining 15:52:41 ACTION: LeeF to close openWorldValueTesting issue 15:53:42 LeeF: anyone intending to submit further reviews? 15:54:00 patH: insofar as my action entails a review of section 12, yes 15:55:50 -PatH 15:55:52 -Orri_Erling 15:55:53 -jeen 15:55:58 -SimonR 16:04:02 -[IBMCambridge] 16:04:10 -SteveH 16:05:01 RRSAgent, stop