IRC log of sparql on 2009-04-07

Timestamps are in UTC.

13:51:53 [RRSAgent]
RRSAgent has joined #sparql
13:51:53 [RRSAgent]
logging to
13:51:55 [trackbot]
RRSAgent, make logs world
13:51:57 [trackbot]
Zakim, this will be 77277
13:51:57 [Zakim]
ok, trackbot; I see SW_(SPARQL)10:00AM scheduled to start in 9 minutes
13:51:58 [trackbot]
Meeting: SPARQL Working Group Teleconference
13:51:58 [trackbot]
Date: 07 April 2009
13:53:41 [LeeF]
now i just have to deal with the people doing construction or yard work or something outside
13:54:28 [LeeF]
not sure how well that worked for the last guy that tried it :D
13:55:32 [JanneS]
JanneS has joined #sparql
13:56:07 [ivan]
ivan has joined #sparql
13:56:21 [Zakim]
SW_(SPARQL)10:00AM has now started
13:56:28 [Zakim]
13:56:34 [Zakim]
13:56:37 [kasei]
Zakim, mute me
13:56:37 [Zakim]
kasei should now be muted
13:57:19 [ivan]
zakim, dial ivan-voip
13:57:19 [Zakim]
ok, ivan; the call is being made
13:57:21 [Zakim]
13:57:31 [LeeF]
ivan, can you scribe today please?
13:57:36 [LeeF]
oh wait
13:57:37 [LeeF]
i'll scribe
13:57:39 [LeeF]
13:57:53 [Zakim]
13:59:18 [Zakim]
13:59:50 [LeeF]
regrets next week: ivan
14:00:01 [Zakim]
14:00:31 [LeeF]
zakim, ??P24 has SteveH, LukeWM
14:00:32 [Zakim]
+SteveH, LukeWM; got it
14:00:38 [AxelPolleres]
I can take over scribing.
14:00:48 [ywang4]
ywang4 has joined #sparql
14:00:48 [AxelPolleres]
scribe: Axel Polleres
14:00:54 [LeeF]
Scribenick: AxelPolleres
14:00:58 [AxelPolleres]
scribenick: Axel Polleres
14:01:06 [SteveH]
SteveH has joined #sparql
14:01:10 [AxelPolleres]
topic: Admin
14:01:36 [LukeWM]
LukeWM has joined #sparql
14:01:41 [LeeF]
zakim, who's here?
14:01:43 [Zakim]
On the phone I see john-l, kasei (muted), Ivan, AxelPolleres, Lee_Feigenbaum, ??P24
14:01:50 [Zakim]
??P24 has SteveH, LukeWM
14:01:55 [Zakim]
On IRC I see LukeWM, SteveH, ywang4, ivan, JanneS, RRSAgent, chimezie, kasei, AxelPolleres, bijan, SimonS, LeeF, KjetilK, iv_an_ru, Zakim, trackbot, john-l, ericP
14:01:59 [Zakim]
14:02:11 [LeeF]
Regrets: ericP, AndyS, AlexP
14:02:49 [AxelPolleres]
LeeF: rearrangement on agenda, bijan joining later, so we shuffle a bit
14:02:52 [LeeF]
PROPOSED: Approve minutes at
14:03:10 [Zakim]
14:03:19 [AxelPolleres]
no objections.
14:03:28 [LeeF]
RESOLVED: Approve minutes at
14:04:05 [LeeF]
next meeting: 14-April
14:04:09 [LeeF]
regrets next time: ivan, axel
14:04:22 [AxelPolleres]
LeeF: next meeting, 14th, regrets Ivan & Axel
14:04:50 [AxelPolleres]
... last tleconf to discuss new features. THen we start with consensus reaching and consolidation.
14:05:05 [KjetilK]
Zakim, what is the code?
14:05:05 [Zakim]
the conference code is 77277 (tel:+1.617.761.6200 tel:+ tel:+44.117.370.6152), KjetilK
14:05:08 [AxelPolleres]
... pls check features to be discussed and send your thoughts!
14:05:21 [AxelPolleres]
topic: liaisons
14:05:42 [AxelPolleres]
14:05:44 [LeeF]
Axel: OWL WG and RIF WG discussing rdf:text datatype
14:05:59 [Zakim]
+ +1.479.864.aaaa
14:06:04 [KjetilK]
Zakim, aaaa is me
14:06:04 [Zakim]
+KjetilK; got it
14:06:12 [KjetilK]
Zakim, mute me
14:06:12 [Zakim]
KjetilK should now be muted
14:07:02 [LeeF]
Axel: might want SPARQL WG to review last call draft
14:08:05 [AxelPolleres]
ACTION: Axel to send a pointer to the mailinglist for rdf:text, when it's up to LC
14:08:08 [trackbot]
Created ACTION-7 - Send a pointer to the mailinglist for rdf:text, when it's up to LC [on Axel Polleres - due 2009-04-14].
14:08:46 [AxelPolleres]
topic: Discuss features
14:09:08 [AxelPolleres]
LeeF: ControlOfDescribeQueries next week.
14:09:15 [LeeF]
topic: Xproc
14:09:18 [LeeF]
14:09:29 [AxelPolleres]
subtopic: Xproc
14:10:20 [Zakim]
14:10:39 [SteveH]
14:11:10 [ivan]
-> XPROC draft
14:11:54 [AxelPolleres]
Lee: looks like more related to RDF Core and XProc WG's. we can't do it alone.
14:12:00 [Zakim]
14:12:03 [AxelPolleres]
14:12:11 [LeeF]
ack SteveH
14:12:38 [AxelPolleres]
Steve: on RDF/XML, XProc is solved and no problem.
14:13:13 [LeeF]
ack AxelPolleres
14:13:22 [SteveH]
...that's not what I meant
14:13:32 [SteveH]
I meant that RDF/XML is not our problem
14:13:34 [AxelPolleres]
14:13:55 [ivan]
14:13:55 [dnewman2]
dnewman2 has joined #sparql
14:14:00 [LeeF]
AxelPolleres: DERI working on pipes tool - workflow for RDF, includes SPARQL - XML serialization, we will align with XProc
14:14:26 [AxelPolleres]
14:15:22 [LeeF]
LeeF: Does DERI think this is something we should pursue?
14:15:42 [LeeF]
AxelPolleres: Not in the core of our charter, would be better joint with XProc or XQuery folks, maybe people volunteering as a note
14:15:46 [LeeF]
ack ivan
14:16:29 [AxelPolleres]
(those comments chairhat-offf)
14:16:38 [ivan]
14:16:40 [KjetilK]
-1 (out of scope)
14:16:41 [SteveH]
-1, not our problem
14:16:41 [ywang4]
14:16:43 [john-l]
14:16:44 [kasei]
14:16:44 [ywang4]
14:16:44 [chimezie]
14:16:44 [LukeWM]
14:16:46 [AxelPolleres]
Ivan: also think that this is not in the charter.
14:16:50 [SimonS]
-1 out of scope
14:16:54 [dnewman2]
14:16:54 [ywang4]
sorry, mine should be -1
14:16:55 [LeeF]
14:17:04 [AxelPolleres]
Leef: strawpoll on Xproc??
14:17:12 [AxelPolleres]
-1 out of scope
14:17:29 [LeeF]
topic: XML literal results
14:17:30 [LeeF]
14:17:53 [AxelPolleres]
subtopic: XMLLiteral in results
14:18:19 [SteveH]
q+ to ask about XML Schema
14:18:27 [AxelPolleres]
LeeF: xml literals in results are currently encoded/escaped in SPARQL results.
14:18:41 [AxelPolleres]
... proposed here is unescaped XML in results
14:19:11 [LeeF]
-> EricP
14:19:53 [AxelPolleres]
... probably no implementation does it right now, but probably just because it is not compliant.
14:20:06 [LeeF]
ack SteveH
14:20:06 [Zakim]
SteveH, you wanted to ask about XML Schema
14:20:35 [ivan]
14:20:47 [AxelPolleres]
steve: that would push us out of XML sparql result XSD.
14:21:04 [AxelPolleres]
Lee: we could using any content, but that's probably not helpful.
14:21:24 [AxelPolleres]
q+ to ask about anytype in XML schema
14:21:38 [LeeF]
ack ivan
14:22:04 [AxelPolleres]
ivan: issues around schema and RDF/XML were more complex than that.
14:22:20 [AxelPolleres]
... has there been a user request in this respect?
14:23:13 [LeeF]
ack AxelPolleres
14:23:13 [Zakim]
AxelPolleres, you wanted to ask about anytype in XML schema
14:24:58 [AxelPolleres]
Axel: seems doable in XML Schema
14:25:19 [AxelPolleres]
Lee: but not very helpful, w/o a mechanism to also specify which XML schema is meant there.
14:25:20 [SteveH]
-1, too complex
14:25:22 [KjetilK]
+1 (if the submitter can justify it further, I much prefer XML to be addressable with XPath)
14:25:26 [kasei]
14:25:27 [ivan]
-1 priorities
14:25:28 [ywang4]
14:25:30 [chimezie]
-1 low priority
14:25:33 [john-l]
14:25:35 [AxelPolleres]
... strawpoll on allowing unescaped XML?
14:25:35 [LukeWM]
14:25:38 [AxelPolleres]
14:25:40 [dnewman2]
14:25:40 [SimonS]
14:25:40 [LeeF]
14:26:24 [KjetilK]
Zakim, unmute me
14:26:24 [Zakim]
KjetilK should no longer be muted
14:27:51 [AxelPolleres]
Kjetil: sees potential in XML in results for being XPath processable. Likes to postpone this, because we may be talking about different things here, needs clarification.
14:28:01 [AxelPolleres]
... next week problematic for me.
14:28:53 [AxelPolleres]
14:29:04 [LeeF]
14:29:17 [KjetilK]
Zakim: mute me
14:29:21 [LeeF]
topic: SurfaceSyntax
14:29:25 [AxelPolleres]
LeeF: let's look at surface syntax
14:29:34 [LeeF]
14:30:37 [AxelPolleres]
... this is about "syntactic sugar" to be definable in terms of the current spec.
14:32:39 [AxelPolleres]
... assignments, evaluated expressions partially overlap.
14:32:52 [AxelPolleres]
... scalarExpressions.
14:33:09 [ivan]
14:33:20 [AxelPolleres]
... my idea is treating these at once.
14:33:20 [SteveH]
14:33:23 [AxelPolleres]
14:33:27 [LeeF]
ack ivan
14:33:45 [AxelPolleres]
ivan: these are low-priority things.
14:33:55 [LeeF]
q+ to note educational / learning aspect
14:34:42 [LeeF]
ack SteveH
14:34:49 [AxelPolleres]
ivan: syntactic sugar may give impression of huge changes, where there aren't
14:35:10 [AxelPolleres]
steve: agree with ivan mostly.
14:35:44 [KjetilK]
14:36:23 [dnewman2]
14:36:25 [LeeF]
ack AxelPolleres
14:36:27 [AxelPolleres]
... we should avoid "syntactic nightmare" extension
14:36:44 [SteveH]
"syntactic nightmare" lack of extension, really
14:37:23 [LeeF]
?s :p `3 + 4`
14:37:40 [SteveH]
you can't do that with a filter...
14:37:41 [LeeF]
?s :p `?o + 4`
14:37:45 [Zakim]
14:37:49 [bijan]
zakim, ??P6 is me
14:37:49 [Zakim]
+bijan; got it
14:37:52 [bijan]
zakim, mute me
14:37:52 [Zakim]
bijan should now be muted
14:38:44 [LeeF]
14:39:52 [LeeF]
ack LeeF
14:39:52 [Zakim]
LeeF, you wanted to note educational / learning aspect
14:40:12 [AxelPolleres]
LeeF: scalar in construct could be a synt sugar subfeature of assignment.
14:40:30 [bijan]
I'll note that good surface syntax can reveal optimization oppourtunities
14:40:32 [AxelPolleres]
... that is why I count it in "surface syntax"
14:40:45 [LeeF]
ack KjetilK
14:41:23 [AxelPolleres]
Kjetil: we shouldn't under-estimate the power of writing things quickly.
14:41:28 [SteveH]
Garlik use ?x = ... || ?x = ... a lot
14:41:55 [chimezie]
We also have had numerous requests for IN support
14:41:57 [LeeF]
ack dnewman2
14:42:00 [LeeF]
ack dnewman
14:42:02 [AxelPolleres]
... IN is an axemaple of that.
14:42:24 [AxelPolleres]
dave: from an end user perspective this is very attractive.
14:42:48 [AxelPolleres]
... aligns in certain respects with SQL. would support it.
14:43:05 [AxelPolleres]
LeeF: any othe opinions?
14:43:19 [ivan]
14:43:20 [KjetilK]
+1 (but, yeah, lets do it at the end)
14:43:23 [bijan]
14:43:24 [SteveH]
0, it's too broad
14:43:25 [kasei]
14:43:26 [chimezie]
14:43:27 [dnewman2]
14:43:29 [SimonS]
+1 agree with Kjetil and Dave, do it at the end
14:43:36 [john-l]
14:43:39 [LukeWM]
+1 for at the end
14:43:39 [AxelPolleres]
strawpoll: is work on surface syntax in general in scope of the WG?
14:43:45 [LeeF]
+1 time permitting
14:43:51 [KjetilK]
Zakim, mute me
14:43:51 [Zakim]
KjetilK should now be muted
14:43:51 [AxelPolleres]
14:43:53 [ywang4]
14:44:07 [SteveH]
+1, time permitting, probably
14:44:08 [ywang4]
and i think it should be a bit more
14:44:29 [AxelPolleres]
(obvious and consensual surface syntax features only)
14:44:39 [bijan]
zakim, unmute me
14:44:39 [Zakim]
bijan should no longer be muted
14:44:54 [LeeF]
14:44:55 [LeeF]
14:44:58 [AxelPolleres]
topic: sparql/owl
14:45:51 [AxelPolleres]
bijan: a document which specifies which additional inferneces/answers on BGP patterns you should get under various OWL/OWL2 entailment regimes
14:45:53 [ivan]
14:46:15 [AxelPolleres]
LeeF: would we do it for one flavor of OWL?
14:46:49 [AxelPolleres]
Bijan: my goal would be conjunctive queries. tend to look on existing implementations and reflect what they DO.
14:46:52 [AxelPolleres]
14:47:14 [AxelPolleres]
... with as much OWL as they can possibly handle
14:48:17 [AxelPolleres]
... kaon2 supports SPARQL with non-distiguished variables, over OWL2 w/o nominals, pellet supports all of SPARQL, Hermit will support as much as KOAN2.
14:48:20 [chimezie]
q+ about relationship with general specification of entailment
14:48:27 [chimezie]
14:48:37 [AxelPolleres]
... racer pro supports NRQL, overlaps greatly with SPARQL.
14:49:09 [KjetilK]
14:49:11 [LukeWM]
14:49:13 [AxelPolleres]
... Quonto is an OLWLQL implementation, OWLGraph supports SPARQL.
14:49:23 [LeeF]
ack ivan
14:49:47 [AxelPolleres]
ivan: what is the different in semantics we are talking about?
14:50:05 [LeeF]
-> Extending SPARQL Basic Graph Pattern Matching
14:50:20 [AxelPolleres]
bijan: achievable goal is: if you turn on inference, you get more answers.
14:50:47 [AxelPolleres]
... it is not entirely clear ore desirable. certain meta-modeling in RDF are impossible to implement.
14:51:09 [AxelPolleres]
... e.g. redefining rdf:type.
14:51:49 [AxelPolleres]
... trey to restrict myself on queries that are reasonable in terms of both OWL and RDF.
14:52:25 [Zakim]
14:52:35 [ywang4]
gonna leave, cheers
14:52:42 [AxelPolleres]
ivan: are all queries you send to a OWL reasoner encodable in SPARQL or not?
14:52:44 [LeeF]
take care, ywang4
14:52:53 [LeeF]
see you next week
14:53:00 [AxelPolleres]
bijan: standard conjunctive queries yes fully covered by SPARQL.
14:53:09 [ywang4]
see you guys :)
14:53:14 [ywang4]
ywang4 has left #sparql
14:53:15 [AxelPolleres]
... SPARQL intuitivelty also allows asking about the SCHEMA.
14:53:34 [AxelPolleres]
... I think we can get a reasonable fraction of that.
14:53:51 [AxelPolleres]
ivan: how much work and energy will it take?
14:54:08 [AxelPolleres]
bijan: mostly done from a paper I have, technically not difficult, transfer to spec.
14:54:09 [LeeF]
ack AxelPolleres
14:55:04 [LeeF]
ack chimezie
14:55:32 [AxelPolleres]
Axel: linking,describing that on the wiki on the feature page, also that summary you gave would be extremly helpful.
14:56:30 [AxelPolleres]
bijan: schema queries doable to some extent, standard syntax for that.
14:57:09 [AxelPolleres]
bijan: use that entailment in queries qwould be something to standardize.
14:57:38 [AxelPolleres]
14:58:21 [AxelPolleres]
Leef: mechanism to know which entailment is "done"
14:58:23 [ivan]
14:58:37 [LeeF]
ack KjetilK
14:59:11 [chimezie]
I'm wondering whether we can afford to do both this proposal as well as something like ParameterizedInference (which seems like the general case)
14:59:17 [AxelPolleres]
kjetil: implementations that do simple bw-chaining, would that proposal influence them?
14:59:30 [chimezie]
or whether there is overlap between the two
15:00:11 [AxelPolleres]
bijan: OWL has an OWL RL subprofile implementable in rules, QL implementable by rule expansion, OWL EL implementable in combination
15:00:31 [ivan]
15:00:36 [AxelPolleres]
... not sure whether this is answering your question.
15:01:12 [AxelPolleres]
kjetil: would it cover to know "which profile is used by a certain engine"?
15:01:29 [KjetilK]
Zakim, mute me
15:01:29 [Zakim]
KjetilK should now be muted
15:01:33 [LeeF]
ack LukeWM
15:01:37 [AxelPolleres]
bijan: tell what you have is a separate issue
15:02:03 [kasei]
bijan: based on the sparql-dl paper, it seems that you define a ast->triples conversion, but I didn't see the (presumably desirable) sparql syntax->ast conversion.
15:02:31 [LeeF]
ack AxelPolleres
15:03:10 [LeeF]
AxelPolleres: is bnode coreference solved?
15:03:20 [LeeF]
bijan: persists as an open issue, think I have a reasonable solution
15:03:50 [LeeF]
... think best way to get interoperability is to treat bnodes as local names
15:04:07 [ivan]
15:04:22 [LeeF]
zakim, close the queue
15:04:22 [Zakim]
ok, LeeF, the speaker queue is closed
15:05:02 [LeeF]
AxelPolleres: in terms of metaqueries, would you restrict certain queries?
15:05:27 [LeeF]
bijan: two possibilies. 1) might need to restrict queries. 2) restrict answers, so e.g. if ?C subclass ?D
15:05:32 [LeeF]
... you could restrict answers to atomic classes only
15:05:37 [LeeF]
... to avoid infinite trivial answers
15:06:33 [SimonS]
+q to ask whether syntactic restrictions are possible in SPARQL1 entailment regimes
15:07:13 [LeeF]
bijan: algebra stays the same, it does operations on a tuple level
15:07:40 [AxelPolleres]
... only BGP.
15:08:32 [LeeF]
ivan: do any other features affect this?
15:08:39 [LeeF]
bijan: i don't think so since none of them trouch BGP matching semantics
15:08:56 [LeeF]
ivan: would this be a separate document?
15:08:58 [LeeF]
bijan: yes
15:09:57 [LeeF]
SimonS: is it possible to restrict syntax within an entailment regime?
15:10:21 [LeeF]
bijan: you can implement this by saying that for queries that you think are syntactically malformed you return nothing
15:11:10 [bijan]
15:11:11 [ivan]
1 (with the hope it will work out:-)
15:11:15 [KjetilK]
+1 (since it is allready almost there, and it covers the simple stuff)
15:11:16 [LukeWM]
15:11:22 [dnewman2]
15:11:23 [LeeF]
zakim, who's here?
15:11:23 [Zakim]
On the phone I see john-l, kasei (muted), Ivan, AxelPolleres, Lee_Feigenbaum, ??P24, SimonS, KjetilK (muted), Chimezie_Ogbuji, DaveNewman, bijan
15:11:25 [SimonS]
15:11:26 [Zakim]
??P24 has SteveH, LukeWM
15:11:27 [Zakim]
On IRC I see dnewman2, LukeWM, SteveH, ivan, RRSAgent, chimezie, kasei, AxelPolleres, bijan, SimonS, LeeF, KjetilK, iv_an_ru, Zakim, trackbot, john-l, ericP
15:11:29 [john-l]
15:11:33 [kasei]
15:11:35 [LeeF]
15:11:45 [chimezie]
0 (I still don't have a grasp on the relationship between this feature and the other entailment features requests)
15:11:46 [SteveH]
0, I like, but my org has no use for it sadly
15:11:52 [AxelPolleres]
0.5 thinking that this is only solvable in cinjunciton with Param Inference and need to get clearer about the issues.
15:12:08 [AxelPolleres]
+1 (but in principle positive... ok)
15:12:12 [AxelPolleres]
ok ok ok ;-)
15:12:20 [chimezie]
bijan: okay I wilkl :)
15:12:26 [chimezie]
15:12:57 [Zakim]
15:13:01 [Zakim]
15:13:07 [SteveH]
bye, everyone
15:13:11 [Zakim]
15:13:12 [LukeWM]
15:13:15 [Zakim]
15:13:17 [Zakim]
15:13:17 [Zakim]
15:13:17 [Zakim]
15:13:19 [Zakim]
15:13:19 [Zakim]
15:13:20 [Zakim]
15:13:37 [ivan]
lee is gone, I wanted to talk to him:-(
15:13:40 [LeeF]
Encourage discussion of other features on the mailing list
15:14:01 [Zakim]
15:14:14 [LeeF]
zakim, who's here?
15:14:14 [Zakim]
On the phone I see Ivan, Lee_Feigenbaum
15:14:15 [Zakim]
On IRC I see SteveH, ivan, RRSAgent, chimezie, kasei, bijan, SimonS, LeeF, KjetilK, iv_an_ru, Zakim, trackbot, john-l, ericP
15:16:30 [kasei]
kasei has left #sparql
15:17:07 [SimonS1]
SimonS1 has joined #sparql
15:19:12 [LukeWM]
LukeWM has joined #sparql
15:20:01 [SteveH]
SteveH has joined #sparql
15:22:27 [SimonS]
SimonS has joined #sparql
15:26:08 [Zakim]
15:26:14 [Zakim]
15:26:16 [Zakim]
SW_(SPARQL)10:00AM has ended
15:26:18 [Zakim]
Attendees were john-l, kasei, Ivan, AxelPolleres, Lee_Feigenbaum, SteveH, LukeWM, ywang4, SimonS, +1.479.864.aaaa, KjetilK, Chimezie_Ogbuji, DaveNewman, bijan
17:08:10 [bijan]
bijan has left #sparql
17:29:37 [SteveH]
SteveH has joined #sparql