14:28:23 RRSAgent has joined #dawg 14:28:23 logging to http://www.w3.org/2007/10/09-dawg-irc 14:28:27 Zakim has joined #dawg 14:28:31 zakim, this will be dawg 14:28:31 ok, LeeF; I see SW_DAWG()10:30AM scheduled to start in 2 minutes 14:28:35 Chair: LeeF 14:28:44 Agenda: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-dawg/2007OctDec/0017.html 14:28:51 Meeting: RDF Data Access Weekly 14:29:31 SW_DAWG()10:30AM has now started 14:29:38 +LeeF 14:29:42 agenda + convene 14:29:45 agenda + actions 14:29:52 agenda + query language @@ text 14:30:02 agenda + optional, filter, {{ ... }} 14:30:10 agenda + same graph in default and named graph parts of RDF dataset 14:30:17 agenda + SPARQL query PR materials 14:30:19 +??P5 14:30:21 agenda + SPARQL protocol PR materials 14:30:24 zakim, ??P5 is me 14:30:24 +AndyS; got it 14:30:29 agenda + SPARQL XML result format materials 14:31:00 agenda + PR Decision 14:31:07 agenda + SPARQL Testimonials 14:31:43 chimezie has joined #dawg 14:32:02 +Chimezie_Ogbuji 14:33:22 sdas2 has joined #dawg 14:33:29 +Souri_Das 14:34:14 ericP, are you around? 14:34:23 Zakim, please dial ericP-office 14:34:23 ok, ericP; the call is being made 14:34:25 +EricP 14:34:57 zakim, who's here? 14:34:57 On the phone I see LeeF, AndyS, Chimezie_Ogbuji, Souri_Das, EricP 14:34:58 On IRC I see sdas2, chimezie, Zakim, RRSAgent, AndyS, SteveH, afs, LeeF, iv_an_ru, ericP 14:35:14 SteveH, iv_an_ru - joining us today? 14:35:23 yes, just dialing 14:35:51 +??P13 14:35:53 Scribe: ericP 14:35:57 Zakim, ??P13 is me 14:35:57 +SteveH; got it 14:36:15 -> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-dawg/2007OctDec/att-0006/02-dawg-minutes.html minutes from 2 Oct 14:37:03 PROPOSED: accept above minutes as a true record of the last meeting 14:37:19 SECOND: chimezie 14:37:22 APPROVED 14:37:45 next meeting: 16 October 14:37:48 zakim, agendum 1 14:37:48 I don't understand 'agendum 1', LeeF 14:37:52 zakim, next agendum 14:37:52 agendum 1. "convene" taken up [from LeeF] 14:37:56 zakim, close this agendum 14:37:56 agendum 1 closed 14:37:57 I see 9 items remaining on the agenda; the next one is 14:37:58 zakim, next agendum 14:37:59 2. actions [from LeeF] 14:38:00 agendum 2. "actions" taken up [from LeeF] 14:38:09 ACTION: AndyS to put replacement text for filter attachment into rq25 [DONE] 14:38:14 ACTION: ericP to implement the conservative algorithm (fail a test -> 14:38:14 fail the feature) in the implementation report 14:38:17 action -2 14:38:27 ACTION: ericP to implement the conservative algorithm (fail a test -> fail the feature) in the implementation report [DONE] 14:38:37 ACTION: LeeF to mail out a complete test case to determine implementation behavior in the OPTIONAL+FILTER+{{...}} case [DONE] 14:38:47 ACTION: LeeF to mark test in 0003 as approved, update test suite, notify implementors [DONE] 14:38:53 ACTION: LeeF to solicit implementors' desired behavior for {{ ... }} case [DONE] 14:39:02 ACTION: LeeF to solicit mechanically generated test results from pyrhho db [DONE] 14:39:11 ACTION: LeeF to weed out basic facets from complex tests [DROPPED] 14:39:25 ACTION: LeeF to investigate PR mechanics, put together draft transition request 14:39:42 ACTION: LeeF to examine 7 tests affected by change in http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-dawg/2007JulSep/0177.html in view of implementors' experiences 14:41:09 LeeF: AndyS found 7 tests that one would expect to fail if one implemented the letter of the [semantics part of] spec 14:41:54 ACTION: ericP to adapt impl report to include syntax tests [CONTINUES] 14:42:13 ACTION: ericP to poke IETF folks about registering SPARQL media types (esp. application/sparql-query) [CONTINUES] 14:42:23 zakim,close this agendum 14:42:23 agendum 2 closed 14:42:24 I see 8 items remaining on the agenda; the next one is 14:42:26 3. query language @@ text [from LeeF] 14:42:27 zakim, next agendum 14:42:27 agendum 3. "query language @@ text" taken up [from LeeF] 14:43:12 LeeF: @@ text in SPARQL Query has been visited? 14:43:21 AndyS: yes 14:43:28 -> http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/DataAccess/rq23/rq25.html editor's draft 14:43:30 http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/DataAccess/rq23/rq25.html 14:43:31 http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/DataAccess 14:43:50 zakim, close this agendum 14:43:50 agendum 3 closed 14:43:51 I see 7 items remaining on the agenda; the next one is 14:43:52 4. optional, filter, {{ ... }} [from LeeF] 14:43:53 zakim, next agendum 14:43:53 agendum 4. "optional, filter, {{ ... }}" taken up [from LeeF] 14:44:33 LeeF: [re optional filter] 14:45:01 ... AndyS noted that section 12 was ambiguous about when you can simplify {{}}s to {} 14:45:39 -> http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/jena-dev/message/30235 uses query that triggered the investigation 14:46:09 3a: ... ?x ... OPTIONAL { ... FILTER (... ?x ...) } 14:46:09 3b: ... ?x ... OPTIONAL { { ... FILTER ( ... ?x ... ) } } 14:46:28 ... we composed queries that show the possible interpretations (note above options) 14:47:06 ... we surveyed implementors: 14:47:45 ... ... richardNs and chimezie's use the simplified semantics 14:48:28 ... ... richard + 3 prefer non-simplied case 14:48:42 ... ... chimezie and steve prefer the simplified 14:48:52 ... ... glitter does the simplified 14:49:16 #dawg-optional-filter-005-simplified (same semantics) 14:49:16 #dawg-optional-filter-005-not-simplified 14:51:44 ... Ralph's advice: don't hurry a decision and don't break any impls that don't agree to be impl'd 14:52:47 ericP: i pass simplified 14:53:14 ... we have a split between simplified and not simplified 14:53:58 ... it is a corner case [enumerates conditions] 14:54:48 ... how do folks feel about leaving it ambiguous 14:54:56 ? 14:56:53 chimezie: i find the non-simplified counter-intuitive 14:57:24 I find simplified counter-intuitive :-) 14:58:18 afs: "simplified" means that 3a and 3b (above) have the same semantics 15:00:12 zakim, who's here? 15:00:12 On the phone I see LeeF, AndyS, Chimezie_Ogbuji, Souri_Das, EricP, SteveH 15:00:13 chimezie: in this proposal, does text call out the ambiguity? 15:00:14 On IRC I see sdas2, chimezie, Zakim, RRSAgent, AndyS, SteveH, afs, LeeF, iv_an_ru, ericP 15:00:30 LeeF: yes, alternative behaviors explained 15:02:14 ericP: no obvious route to concensus on which behavior to choose? 15:02:37 LeeF: if we were in the design phase, yes 15:03:45 chimezie: in GRDDL, we labeled opposing test cases in the SOTD 15:03:50 ... i would be content with that 15:04:19 steve: i find that the addition of {}s changes semantics unfortunate 15:04:53 ... a bit of a hobson's choice 15:05:49 ...except it's not :) it's more like a rock and a hard place 15:06:22 PROPOSED: Kick EricP out of the DAWG 15:06:33 second 15:10:58 PROPOSED: Note the simplification of {{ ... }} to { ... } (with example: ... ?x ... OPTIONAL { { ... FILTER ( ... ?x ... ) } } as an explicitly ambiguous part of the SPARQL algebra, point to two possible (unapproved) test cases 15:12:01 PROPOSED: Note the simplification of {{ ... }} to { ... } (with example: ... ?x ... OPTIONAL { { ... FILTER ( ... ?x ... ) } } as a recognized ambiguous part of the transformation from SPARQL query to SPARQL algebra expression, point to two possible (unapproved) test cases 15:12:46 second 15:13:16 APPROVED, AndyS abstaining 15:13:37 ACTION: AndyS to draft text recognizing the ambiguity 15:14:13 zakim, close this agendum 15:14:13 agendum 4 closed 15:14:14 I see 6 items remaining on the agenda; the next one is 15:14:15 zakim, next agendum 15:14:15 5. same graph in default and named graph parts of RDF dataset [from LeeF] 15:14:16 agendum 5. "same graph in default and named graph parts of RDF dataset" taken up [from LeeF] 15:14:45 -> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-dawg/2007OctDec/0012.html LeeF on the samed graph twice on the dataset 15:16:18 LeeF: 4 tests assume that bnodes comeing from the same graph loaded into the default graph and into a named graph are distinct 15:16:39 ... AndyS and i have seen nothing in the spec that says these graphs must be disjoint 15:17:30 ... eliminating this restriction would allow me to pass these tests 15:18:36 ... am not proposing that we specify either behavior 15:19:09 AndyS: [missed] 15:19:44 chimezie: instead of eliminating old ones, what if we leave one but unapprove it 15:19:53 ... how does that affect PR transition? 15:20:10 LeeF: we weren't including unapproved tests before 15:20:35 ... but we just decided to include them so we just won't require a green box 15:24:27 PROPOSED: Unapprove dataset/manifest#dawg-dataset-09,dataset/manifest#dawg-dataset-10, dataset/manifest#dawg-dataset-12, and graph/manifest#dawg-graph-10; approve dataset/manifest#dawg-dataset-09b, dataset/manifest#dawg-dataset-10b, dataset/manifest#dawg-dataset-12b, and graph/manifest#dawg-graph-10b, add informative text noting this possible interop snag to SPARQL QL spec 15:25:46 ericP: do these tests still have value? 15:25:50 LeeF: yes 15:26:15 AndyS: these tests are simply making wrong assumptions (that there are two calls to the parser) 15:26:37 chimezie: it calls out a behavior of web architecture 15:33:04 g1: { _:who foaf:name "Bob" } 15:33:04 query: SELECT ?x ?name FROM FROM WHERE { ?x foaf:name ?name } 15:34:09 I would think since the spec is explicit about the indirection of representation -> parse -> graph that how g1 is 'merged' depends completely on the protocol layer 15:34:21 i.e.: new representations over time, or caching headers 15:34:31 GET /g1 HTTP/1.1 15:34:32 if-newer-than: 2007-10-09T15:34:09Z 15:34:42 FROM :-) 15:35:56 PROPOSED: Unapprove dataset/manifest#dawg-dataset-09,dataset/manifest#dawg-dataset-10, dataset/manifest#dawg-dataset-12, and graph/manifest#dawg-graph-10; approve dataset/manifest#dawg-dataset-09b, dataset/manifest#dawg-dataset-10b, dataset/manifest#dawg-dataset-12b, and graph/manifest#dawg-graph-10b, add informative text noting this possible interop snag to SPARQL QL spec 15:36:10 -> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-dawg/2005AprJun/0303.html DanC on web arch and dataset construction corelation 15:37:26 doh 15:37:30 { G, (, G1), (, G2), . . . (, Gn) } 15:37:42 Each is distinct. 15:44:09 PROPOSED: Unapprove dataset/manifest#dawg-dataset-09,dataset/manifest#dawg-dataset-10, dataset/manifest#dawg-dataset-12, and graph/manifest#dawg-graph-10; approve dataset/manifest#dawg-dataset-09b, dataset/manifest#dawg-dataset-10b, dataset/manifest#dawg-dataset-12b, and graph/manifest#dawg-graph-10b 15:45:00 second 15:49:27 AndyS has joined #dawg 15:51:55 LeeF: would like to use a WBS to gather feedback on PR decision 15:52:03 ACTION: Chimezie to propose text to clarify that not all graphs in the dataset need to be disjoint/distinct 15:52:43 PROPOSED: Unapprove dataset/manifest#dawg-dataset-09,dataset/manifest#dawg-dataset-10, dataset/manifest#dawg-dataset-12, and graph/manifest#dawg-graph-10; approve dataset/manifest#dawg-dataset-09b, dataset/manifest#dawg-dataset-10b, dataset/manifest#dawg-dataset-12b, and graph/manifest#dawg-graph-10b 15:52:53 APPROVED, chimezie seconds, SteveH and ericP abstain 15:53:05 ACTION: LeeF to fix approval on dataset and graph tests 15:53:56 -Chimezie_Ogbuji 15:53:58 -Souri_Das 15:54:00 -SteveH 15:54:59 -EricP 15:55:01 -LeeF 15:55:08 -AndyS 15:55:09 SW_DAWG()10:30AM has ended 15:55:13 Attendees were LeeF, AndyS, Chimezie_Ogbuji, Souri_Das, EricP, SteveH 15:55:24 rrsagent, please draft minutes 15:55:24 I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2007/10/09-dawg-minutes.html AndyS 15:55:38 rrsagent, please make minutes world-access 15:55:38 I'm logging. I don't understand 'please make minutes world-access', AndyS. Try /msg RRSAgent help 15:57:07 rrsagent, please make logs world-visible 15:57:18 zakim, please leave 15:57:18 Zakim has left #dawg 15:57:26 rrsagent, please leave 15:57:26 I see 14 open action items saved in http://www.w3.org/2007/10/09-dawg-actions.rdf : 15:57:26 ACTION: AndyS to put replacement text for filter attachment into rq25 [DONE] [1] 15:57:26 recorded in http://www.w3.org/2007/10/09-dawg-irc#T14-38-09 15:57:26 ACTION: ericP to implement the conservative algorithm (fail a test -> fail the feature) in the implementation report [DONE] [3] 15:57:26 recorded in http://www.w3.org/2007/10/09-dawg-irc#T14-38-27 15:57:26 ACTION: LeeF to mail out a complete test case to determine implementation behavior in the OPTIONAL+FILTER+{{...}} case [DONE] [4] 15:57:26 recorded in http://www.w3.org/2007/10/09-dawg-irc#T14-38-37 15:57:26 ACTION: LeeF to mark test in 0003 as approved, update test suite, notify implementors [DONE] [5] 15:57:26 recorded in http://www.w3.org/2007/10/09-dawg-irc#T14-38-47 15:57:26 ACTION: LeeF to solicit implementors' desired behavior for {{ ... }} case [DONE] [6] 15:57:26 recorded in http://www.w3.org/2007/10/09-dawg-irc#T14-38-53 15:57:26 ACTION: LeeF to solicit mechanically generated test results from pyrhho db [DONE] [7] 15:57:26 recorded in http://www.w3.org/2007/10/09-dawg-irc#T14-39-02 15:57:26 ACTION: LeeF to weed out basic facets from complex tests [DROPPED] [8] 15:57:26 recorded in http://www.w3.org/2007/10/09-dawg-irc#T14-39-11 15:57:26 ACTION: LeeF to investigate PR mechanics, put together draft transition request [9] 15:57:26 recorded in http://www.w3.org/2007/10/09-dawg-irc#T14-39-25 15:57:26 ACTION: LeeF to examine 7 tests affected by change in http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-dawg/2007JulSep/0177.html in view of implementors' experiences [10] 15:57:26 recorded in http://www.w3.org/2007/10/09-dawg-irc#T14-39-42 15:57:26 ACTION: ericP to adapt impl report to include syntax tests [CONTINUES] [11] 15:57:26 recorded in http://www.w3.org/2007/10/09-dawg-irc#T14-41-54 15:57:26 ACTION: ericP to poke IETF folks about registering SPARQL media types (esp. application/sparql-query) [CONTINUES] [12] 15:57:26 recorded in http://www.w3.org/2007/10/09-dawg-irc#T14-42-13 15:57:26 ACTION: AndyS to draft text recognizing the ambiguity [13] 15:57:26 recorded in http://www.w3.org/2007/10/09-dawg-irc#T15-13-37 15:57:26 ACTION: Chimezie to propose text to clarify that not all graphs in the dataset need to be disjoint/distinct [14] 15:57:26 recorded in http://www.w3.org/2007/10/09-dawg-irc#T15-52-03 15:57:26 ACTION: LeeF to fix approval on dataset and graph tests [15] 15:57:26 recorded in http://www.w3.org/2007/10/09-dawg-irc#T15-53-05