IRC log of sparql on 2009-04-21

Timestamps are in UTC.

13:55:50 [RRSAgent]
RRSAgent has joined #sparql
13:55:50 [RRSAgent]
logging to
13:55:52 [trackbot]
RRSAgent, make logs world
13:55:52 [Zakim]
Zakim has joined #sparql
13:55:54 [kjetil]
I've told the secretary to check the Bristol Hotel and book me there, and then a lift up to HP would be nice :-)
13:55:54 [trackbot]
Zakim, this will be 77277
13:55:54 [Zakim]
ok, trackbot; I see SW_(SPARQL)10:00AM scheduled to start in 5 minutes
13:55:55 [trackbot]
Meeting: SPARQL Working Group Teleconference
13:55:56 [trackbot]
Date: 21 April 2009
13:56:03 [LeeF]
s/Date:/ Date:
13:56:06 [LeeF]
Chair: AxelPolleres
13:56:09 [LeeF]
Scribe: LeeF
13:56:11 [LukeWM]
LukeWM has joined #sparql
13:56:11 [LeeF]
Scribenick: LeeF
13:56:22 [Zakim]
SW_(SPARQL)10:00AM has now started
13:56:26 [LeeF]
13:56:28 [Zakim]
13:56:36 [SteveH_]
SteveH_ has joined #sparql
13:56:40 [LeeF]
Regrets: Chimezie, Bijan
13:56:50 [Zakim]
13:56:58 [SteveH_]
Zakim, ??P3 is [Garlik]
13:56:58 [Zakim]
+[Garlik]; got it
13:57:07 [SteveH_]
Zakim, [Garlik] has SteveH, LukeWM
13:57:07 [Zakim]
+SteveH, LukeWM; got it
13:57:12 [Zakim]
+ +34.91.664.aaaa
13:57:39 [SteveH_]
Zakim, who's on the phone?
13:57:39 [Zakim]
On the phone I see john-l, [Garlik], +34.91.664.aaaa
13:57:41 [Zakim]
[Garlik] has SteveH, LukeWM
13:57:46 [Zakim]
13:57:54 [AndyS]
zakim, ??P9 is me
13:57:54 [Zakim]
+AndyS; got it
13:58:11 [kasei]
Zakim just hung up on me :(
13:58:12 [AndyS]
Maybe. zakim did not speak the full messages
13:58:28 [AndyS]
zakim, please mute me
13:58:28 [Zakim]
AndyS should now be muted
13:58:39 [AndyS]
zakim, please unmute me
13:58:39 [Zakim]
AndyS should no longer be muted
13:59:07 [AxelPolleres]
Zakim, who is on the phone?
13:59:07 [Zakim]
On the phone I see john-l, [Garlik], AxelPolleres, AndyS
13:59:08 [Zakim]
[Garlik] has SteveH, LukeWM
13:59:11 [Zakim]
+ +1.937.775.aabb
13:59:12 [Zakim]
13:59:12 [Zakim]
13:59:21 [kasei]
Zakim, mute me
13:59:22 [Zakim]
kasei should now be muted
13:59:26 [SimonS]
SimonS has joined #sparql
13:59:53 [SimonS]
13:59:58 [LeeF]
zakim, aabb is Prateek
13:59:58 [Zakim]
+Prateek; got it
14:00:09 [PrateekJain-WSU]
Hi This is Prateek Jain,937 775 4638
14:00:11 [JanneS]
JanneS has joined #sparql
14:00:27 [LeeF]
zakim, Prateek is PrateekJain-WSU
14:00:27 [Zakim]
+PrateekJain-WSU; got it
14:00:45 [Zakim]
14:00:52 [kjetil]
Zakim, ??P19 is me
14:00:52 [Zakim]
+kjetil; got it
14:00:54 [LeeF]
zakim, mute me please
14:00:54 [Zakim]
Lee_Feigenbaum should now be muted
14:00:58 [AxelPolleres]
Zakim, who is on the phone?
14:00:58 [Zakim]
On the phone I see john-l, [Garlik], AxelPolleres, AndyS, PrateekJain-WSU, kasei (muted), Lee_Feigenbaum (muted), kjetil
14:00:59 [kjetil]
Zakim, mute me
14:01:00 [Zakim]
[Garlik] has SteveH, LukeWM
14:01:00 [Zakim]
kjetil should now be muted
14:01:07 [Zakim]
14:01:09 [Zakim]
14:02:17 [AxelPolleres]
Zakim, who is on the phone?
14:02:17 [Zakim]
On the phone I see john-l, [Garlik], AxelPolleres, AndyS, PrateekJain-WSU, kasei (muted), LeeF (muted), kjetil (muted), JanneS, SimonS
14:02:19 [Zakim]
[Garlik] has SteveH, LukeWM
14:02:46 [LeeF]
AxelPolleres: plan today is to get through the rest of the features from the wiki and go over Web survey
14:03:05 [LeeF]
... survey will be open for 1.5 weeks or so, to give us an idea of where to go from the F2F topic on
14:03:10 [LeeF]
topic: Admin
14:03:23 [LeeF]
PROPOSED: Approve minutes at
14:03:29 [LeeF]
RESOLVED: Approve minutes at
14:03:52 [LeeF]
next meeting: one week from today, 28 Apr, will talk about F2F details
14:04:03 [LeeF]
scribe for next meeting: Ivan M
14:04:29 [LeeF]
topic: Liaisons:
14:04:37 [ywang4]
ywang4 has joined #sparql
14:04:41 [LeeF]
14:04:55 [LeeF]
AxelPolleres: rdf:text is basically finished, not sure when it will go to Last Call
14:05:07 [AxelPolleres]
14:05:09 [LeeF]
... if we want to review it, it would be great
14:05:13 [AndyS]
I volunteer (not exclusively)
14:05:34 [SteveH_]
tentative volunteer, but I can't promise
14:05:38 [LeeF]
ACTION: AndyS to review rdf:text
14:05:39 [trackbot]
Created ACTION-8 - Review rdf:text [on Andy Seaborne - due 2009-04-28].
14:05:44 [LeeF]
ACTION: SteveH to try to review rdf:text
14:05:44 [trackbot]
Created ACTION-9 - Try to review rdf:text [on Steve Harris - due 2009-04-28].
14:05:57 [LeeF]
AndyS: there will be substantive issues based on what I've seen
14:06:29 [Zakim]
+ +656304aacc
14:06:44 [LeeF]
zakim, aacc is ywang4
14:06:44 [Zakim]
+ywang4; got it
14:06:45 [AlexPassant]
AlexPassant has joined #sparql
14:07:14 [Zakim]
14:07:15 [LeeF]
AxelPolleres: RIF WG had F2F in Cambridge last week
14:07:25 [LeeF]
... plan is to go to LC by end of May
14:07:25 [AlexPassant]
Zakim, ??P39 is me
14:07:25 [Zakim]
+AlexPassant; got it
14:07:35 [LeeF]
... will appreciate SPARQL WG reviews then
14:07:43 [ericP]
Zakim, please dial ericP-office
14:07:43 [Zakim]
ok, ericP; the call is being made
14:07:45 [Zakim]
14:07:55 [LeeF]
q+ to ask about 90 min. teleconference?
14:08:43 [LeeF]
ericP: HCLS group is doing stuff with federated queries
14:10:37 [kjetil]
ack LeeF
14:10:37 [Zakim]
LeeF, you wanted to ask about 90 min. teleconference?
14:10:50 [JanneS]
I'll drop out after 60, sorry
14:12:04 [LeeF]
topic: introduction, Prateek
14:12:15 [LeeF]
PrateekJain-WSU: PhD student at Wright State work wtih Amit Sheth
14:12:23 [LeeF]
... research is in the area of query rewriting with emphasis on SPARQL
14:12:35 [LeeF]
... trying to exploit semantic relationships within a knowledge base to automatically rewrite SPARQL
14:13:13 [LeeF]
... interested in rdf serialization of queries and path queries
14:13:44 [LeeF]
topic: feature survey
14:13:53 [AxelPolleres]
14:14:04 [LeeF]
AxelPolleres: Each organization can fill out the survey once
14:14:26 [LeeF]
...we will probably have around 8 features which we will aim for in the working group
14:14:41 [LeeF]
...the survey lists 31 features that survived the "interested for anyone" criteria
14:15:08 [LeeF]
...format of the survey was limited by what the WBS survey gave us
14:15:44 [LeeF]
...options for each feature are ranks 1 - 31 and "don't mind" and "don't want"
14:15:58 [LeeF] not rank all features
14:16:06 [LeeF]
...rank up to the first 8 of your choices
14:16:13 [AndyS]
14:16:19 [LeeF]
ack AndyS
14:16:39 [SteveH_]
14:16:55 [LeeF]
AndyS: are you going to enforce the limit?
14:17:07 [AndyS]
ack AndyS
14:17:14 [kjetil]
14:17:24 [LeeF]
LeeF: we will ask anyone who ranks more than 8 to adjust their choices to only rank 8
14:17:34 [LeeF]
ack SteveH_
14:18:20 [LeeF]
SteveH_: Don't agree with only ranking 8 - if my top 4 don't get done, i don't get to express an opinion about the bottom half of things
14:18:38 [LeeF]
14:18:52 [LeeF]
q+ to say that i'd be happy with ranking more than 8, just not all 31
14:21:01 [kjetil]
q+ to ask if the rank algorithm can't account for people ranking all
14:21:20 [kjetil]
ack me
14:21:21 [LeeF]
SteveH_: voting shouldn't have any different weight just because you rank 4 vs. ranking 30
14:21:22 [Zakim]
kjetil, you wanted to ask if the rank algorithm can't account for people ranking all
14:21:23 [Zakim]
14:21:26 [LeeF]
14:21:46 [LeeF]
kjetil: if we use ranking algorithm, people can rank as many as they which
14:22:12 [dnewman2]
dnewman2 has joined #sparql
14:23:24 [AndyS]
14:24:32 [john-l]
I prefer using a ranking algorithm.
14:25:21 [LeeF]
LeeF; I was concerned that organizations interested in 25 features should not be able to cast 'more' votes and influence things more than someone who casts less
14:25:29 [LeeF]
AndyS: Concerned that everyone be playing by the same rules
14:25:48 [LeeF]
AxelPolleres: i think if we use a threshold like 12 or so we can compromise
14:25:52 [SteveH_]
LeeF, things like Condorcet don't give any advantage to ballot stuffers
14:27:11 [kjetil]
Here's a site we can use for the final ballot:
14:27:25 [john-l]
I propose that we have every organization rank ALL of the features, and then use a Condorcet system to eliminate all but 8-12 winners.
14:27:35 [SteveH_]
or, alternative:
14:28:36 [LeeF]
I'm not comfortable at all with approving a specific ranking to drive things forwards
14:28:44 [LeeF]
s/I'm not/LeeF: I'm not/
14:29:10 [SteveH_]
we don't need the threashold
14:29:21 [LeeF]
14:29:29 [AndyS]
ack me
14:29:56 [LeeF]
SteveH_: with condorcet you're only voting against yourself
14:30:25 [LeeF]
... rank the features you want in the order you'd like them and then we can analyze the data
14:30:48 [kasei]
hearing lots of interference on kjetil(?)
14:31:29 [SteveH_]
for ref.
14:32:15 [ericP]
no tactical voting? i quit!
14:32:30 [LeeF]
SteveH_: with Condorcet there's no advantage at all to ranking fewer or more choices, nor to ranking two things the same
14:32:43 [LeeF]
kjetil: it's just about the relative preference
14:34:45 [LeeF]
LeeF: it's important to me that "all 1 votes" doesn't mean "everything is super important!" but instead "i don't care which of these we do, they're all equally important" - it sounds like people are on the same page about that
14:35:02 [LeeF]
AxelPolleres: suggested deadline for filling out the survey is May 1
14:35:11 [kjetil]
Zakim, mute me
14:35:11 [Zakim]
kjetil should now be muted
14:35:18 [JanneS]
the vote page has April-28 set as the deadline
14:35:27 [ericP]
i would like to propose a new voting scheme
14:35:32 [ericP]
it uses parameterized owl entailment
14:35:49 [LeeF]
LeeF: encourages everyone to fill out the survey as soon as you feel ready to
14:36:22 [LeeF]
14:37:48 [AxelPolleres]
strawman from bijan:
14:38:14 [ericP]
q+ to say i've had people use an XML expression of queries
14:38:15 [AndyS]
That is SPARQL algebra in XML , not SPARQL AST
14:38:38 [LeeF]
ericP: i've had people use XML version of queries for debugging in conjuncgtion with XSLT, can see some use of it
14:39:20 [LeeF]
AndyS: abstract syntax need to be formally addressed if we do pragmas
14:39:24 [JanneS]
14:40:28 [LeeF]
AndyS: TopQuadrant uses an RDF serialization to store queries
14:40:46 [ericP]
+1 to two
14:41:01 [SimonS]
+1 on two
14:41:14 [ericP]
i'm 0 on XML and -1 on RDF ('cause it's so concentious)
14:41:15 [AndyS]
My requirement is to get the abstraction right and do XML, JSON, another
14:42:09 [SimonS]
14:42:17 [LeeF]
ack ericP
14:42:17 [Zakim]
ericP, you wanted to say i've had people use an XML expression of queries
14:42:30 [LeeF]
ack SimonS
14:42:39 [LeeF]
Prateek: we are looking at SPIN for some of our work
14:42:44 [ericP]
q+ to warn of contentious issues
14:42:55 [LeeF]
SimonS: can see use cases for RDF serialization of SPARQL, don't have any use cases for XML
14:43:25 [JanneS]
was the motivation to query sparql via sparql?
14:43:49 [LeeF]
ericP: i've seen this be contentious before - in particular the expression of a graph pattern in RDF - difficult space to work in
14:43:53 [LeeF]
14:43:55 [LeeF]
ack ericP
14:43:55 [Zakim]
ericP, you wanted to warn of contentious issues
14:43:56 [SimonS]
kind of. Rather composing SPARQL queries at runtime from RDF data
14:44:00 [ericP]
14:44:32 [ericP]
upshot: whatever we do, we don't want people expressing their data in RDF
14:44:43 [LeeF]
s/upshot:/ upshot:
14:45:00 [LeeF]
AxelPolleres: straw poll on RDF serialization of SPARQL queries
14:45:01 [ericP]
14:45:02 [SteveH_]
-1, it's a minefield
14:45:03 [AndyS]
14:45:03 [kjetil]
14:45:04 [PrateekJain-WSU]
14:45:05 [LukeWM]
14:45:05 [JanneS]
sounds like closure to the extreme i.e. sparql query result could be a valid sparql query
14:45:07 [LeeF]
14:45:07 [john-l]
14:45:08 [AlexPassant]
14:45:09 [kasei]
14:45:09 [JanneS]
14:45:09 [AxelPolleres]
14:45:12 [SimonS]
0 would be nice, but difficult
14:45:39 [LeeF]
AxelPolleres: straw poll on XML serialization of SPARQL queries
14:45:48 [john-l]
14:45:49 [AndyS]
14:45:50 [LukeWM]
14:45:51 [LeeF]
14:45:52 [SteveH_]
0, could be useful, but not huge usecases for us
14:45:52 [PrateekJain-WSU]
14:45:53 [ericP]
14:45:55 [JanneS]
14:45:56 [AxelPolleres]
14:45:56 [kasei]
14:45:58 [SimonS]
14:45:58 [kjetil]
14:46:00 [AlexPassant]
14:46:12 [LeeF]
bijan is a +1 by proxy, I'm positive
14:47:32 [LeeF]
topic: FunctionLibrary
14:47:37 [LeeF]
14:48:24 [AxelPolleres]
Related here
14:48:51 [AxelPolleres]
14:49:03 [AxelPolleres]
14:49:31 [ericP]
q+ to talk about existing extensibility
14:50:05 [LeeF]
LeeF: this feature is about spending the working group's time expanding the core set of functions that query writers can expect to be interoperable between implementations
14:50:21 [LeeF]
ericP: we did spend some time testing last time to make sure that extension functions work in a sane way
14:50:23 [SteveH_]
+1 to ericP
14:50:41 [AndyS]
Significant value. Reuse F&O where possible. Fix a set of functions expected everywhere - not too large to ensure universal coverage.
14:50:56 [SteveH_]
+1 to AndyS too
14:52:22 [LeeF]
AxelPolleres: the question here is whether the WG should expand the list of built-in functions
14:53:04 [LeeF]
AxelPolleres: straw poll on working on extending function library
14:53:12 [AxelPolleres]
14:53:13 [SteveH_]
14:53:14 [kjetil]
14:53:14 [LeeF]
14:53:15 [kasei]
+1 but low priority
14:53:16 [john-l]
14:53:17 [JanneS]
14:53:17 [LeeF]
+1 even
14:53:17 [PrateekJain-WSU]
14:53:18 [ericP]
14:53:20 [SimonS]
14:53:23 [AndyS]
14:53:29 [LukeWM]
14:53:30 [AlexPassant]
14:53:46 [kjetil]
(but yeah, at the end)
14:53:49 [AndyS]
14:53:50 [LeeF]
topic: FullText
14:53:58 [kjetil]
Zakim, unmute me
14:53:58 [Zakim]
kjetil should no longer be muted
14:54:22 [AxelPolleres]
14:54:43 [LeeF]
kjetil: most Web sites have search boxes... if you want to use a triple store for an application and SPARQL on top of that
14:54:51 [LeeF]
... you need someway to communicate a search down to SPARQL endpoint
14:54:56 [LeeF]
s/someway/some way
14:55:10 [LeeF]
... we could standardize in several ways here
14:55:34 [LeeF]
... could have a function in function library
14:55:54 [LeeF]
... could also use xpath/xquery text functions
14:56:03 [SteveH_]
q+ to ask about XPath fulltext v's regex
14:56:05 [LeeF]
... users might want to search more than just one literal
14:56:19 [AndyS]
q+ to talke about XQ full text
14:56:20 [LeeF]
q+ to ask about xpath compared with lucene and to note potential contention
14:56:25 [AxelPolleres]
q+ to ask about redundancy wrt regex
14:56:30 [AndyS]
q+ to say it's not a library function
14:56:37 [ericP]
14:56:39 [LeeF]
kjetil: lots of possibilities but think this is important for interoperability
14:57:08 [LeeF]
SteveH_: I read the xpath full text specification - more complicated than I thought it would be
14:57:12 [ericP]
-> xpath full text examples
14:57:38 [LeeF]
... this is more complex than just referring to xpath spec, because there's a lot there that is xpath-specific
14:57:49 [LeeF]
... on the other end of a scale, LIKE syntax is just syntactic sugar over regex
14:58:07 [AndyS]
SteveH_: similarity to LIKE
14:58:26 [LeeF]
... would need to understand what we're talking about - the LIKE syntax is easy to standardize, full text feature will be a lot of work just to figure out what parts of the XPath full text doc are relevant and which aren't
14:58:40 [ericP] doesn't mention regex
14:58:52 [ericP]
what uses cases does regex not support?
14:58:57 [LeeF]
kjetil: Virtuoso feels that it is harder to implement regular expressions than full text
14:59:01 [SteveH_]
ericP, stemming for one
14:59:15 [LeeF]
AndyS: i think XQuery full text is too big, too complicated
14:59:24 [LeeF]
... it's important to ensure that existing tools, not just lucene, can be used
14:59:38 [LeeF]
14:59:39 [LeeF]
ack SteveH_
14:59:40 [Zakim]
SteveH_, you wanted to ask about XPath fulltext v's regex
14:59:41 [LeeF]
ack AndyS
14:59:41 [Zakim]
AndyS, you wanted to talke about XQ full text and to say it's not a library function
14:59:58 [LeeF]
AndyS: this is not just a library function - it's not a restriction, since it's generative from an index
15:00:06 [LeeF]
... "find me all the things that match 'x'"
15:00:17 [LeeF]
... "find me all the URIs of documents that contain the following string"
15:00:53 [LeeF]
... concerned that scripting engines end up with a real burden to implement this
15:00:56 [SteveH_]
not just smaller implementations, the only impl. of XPath fulltext i've seen is huge
15:00:56 [LeeF]
ack LeeF
15:00:56 [Zakim]
LeeF, you wanted to ask about xpath compared with lucene and to note potential contention
15:01:11 [ericP]
the scripting people can be incomplete. doesn't really matter except for bragging rights
15:01:56 [kasei]
ericP: it matters for portability between scripting and the bigger impls.
15:02:42 [ericP]
kasei, i think that's an argument for then being sound, but not complete
15:03:29 [kjetil]
15:03:34 [SimonS]
q+ to say most existing implementations seem quite similar
15:03:48 [ericP]
i was arguing that if the burden of implementation keeps some scripts from being complete, that's not a big cost. however, we'd like to see them interoperate even in their subsets
15:03:59 [LeeF]
LeeF: i see a strong case for interoperability here, but also see a huge amount of work to standardize this well
15:04:15 [LeeF]
AndyS: there are other things to consider as well, such as scoring of results
15:04:21 [SteveH_]
I don't want to see a world where we end up just standardising lucene syntax
15:04:32 [LeeF]
AxelPolleres: seems that xpath/xquery might be too heavy for us, as opposed to aligning what existing implementations do
15:04:45 [ericP]
q+ to ask if lucene is a strict subset of xpath:ftcontains
15:04:46 [AndyS]
ack to SteveH_ -- starting point only
15:05:12 [SteveH_]
ericP, it's not no
15:05:25 [LeeF]
15:05:31 [LeeF]
ack AxelPolleres
15:05:31 [Zakim]
AxelPolleres, you wanted to ask about redundancy wrt regex
15:05:33 [LeeF]
ack kjetil
15:06:08 [ericP]
we'll have a hell of a fight if we want to standardize a non-xpath function if there's an xpath function nearby
15:06:10 [AndyS]
Maybe good to add some clear syntax to make it easier to understand for query writers
15:06:17 [JanneS]
(I need to leave, will be voting -1 for the full fledged proposal with XQuery and XPath Full Text 1.0, +1 if we add some syntactic sugar to ease interoperability with Lucene type of implementations)
15:06:25 [ericP]
burden will be on us to prove that it's not covered by subsetting ftcontains
15:06:44 [AxelPolleres]
15:07:12 [LeeF]
SimonS: most implementations I know are very close to or based on Lucene - that seems to be what people want
15:07:17 [LeeF]
... syntax extensions are similar as well
15:07:25 [SteveH_]
or, what implemetors found it easiest to build
15:07:29 [JanneS]
(uh, BasicFederatedQuery deserves the protocol extensions is my +1 for both, no comment on LimitPerResource yet) - bye
15:07:56 [Zakim]
15:08:29 [LeeF]
ericP: I think that if we try to standardize something analogous to an XQuery function (e.g. lucene:contains) then we will need to prove to the world & XQuery WG that we were not able to subset ft:contains to meet our needs
15:09:18 [Zakim]
15:09:24 [LeeF]
AndyS: to be pragmatic, i don't want to put an xquery parser inside my sparql impl
15:09:36 [ywang4]
see you next time :)
15:09:40 [ywang4]
ywang4 has left #sparql
15:10:02 [LeeF]
SteveH_: it would be tough to separate e.g. how it refers to rdf literals rather than xml nodes
15:10:38 [AndyS]
15:10:39 [LeeF]
AxelPolleres: straw poll on full text
15:10:45 [AxelPolleres]
15:10:47 [ericP]
15:10:48 [LeeF]
ack SimonS
15:10:49 [Zakim]
SimonS, you wanted to say most existing implementations seem quite similar
15:10:49 [LeeF]
ack ericP
15:10:56 [SimonS]
15:11:00 [kjetil]
15:11:01 [ericP]
15:11:02 [LeeF]
AxelPolleres: straw poll on full text
15:11:02 [SteveH_]
15:11:04 [AndyS]
15:11:08 [kasei]
15:11:08 [AxelPolleres]
15:11:10 [john-l]
15:11:10 [AlexPassant]
15:11:11 [PrateekJain-WSU]
15:11:11 [SimonS]
15:11:13 [LukeWM]
15:11:17 [LeeF]
0, against my better judgment which says +1
15:11:21 [ericP]
15:11:56 [ericP]
i'm surprised. usally "better judgement" is aligned with discresion
15:11:58 [LeeF]
topic: LimitPerResource
15:12:28 [AlexPassant]
15:13:12 [LeeF]
AlexPassant: proposal is to find a way to limit solutions not by tuples but by distinct instances of a resource
15:13:19 [LeeF]
... example syntax on wiki page
15:13:42 [kjetil]
15:13:49 [LeeF]
ack kjetil
15:13:56 [LeeF]
kjetil: this is the single most important feature for us
15:14:08 [LeeF]
q+ to ask about relationship with subselect
15:14:25 [AxelPolleres]
q+ on whether thisis an issue for surface syntax
15:14:29 [LeeF]
kjetil: you don't know in advance how many rows you expect back
15:15:09 [AxelPolleres]
15:15:15 [SteveH_]
15:15:30 [LeeF]
LeeF: is it true that if sparql has subselects then limitperresource is syntactic sugar?
15:15:39 [LeeF]
SteveH_: you also need grouping/limiting operations
15:16:25 [LeeF]
... in other cases besides you need a grouping operator
15:16:40 [LeeF]
AxelPolleres: Alex & Kjetil would you be happy if this was subsumed by subselect?
15:16:48 [LeeF]
kjetil: yes, if we do subselect
15:16:57 [AxelPolleres]
let's do a strawpoll conditional to subselects
15:16:58 [LeeF]
AlexPassant: yes, it's the capability itself that is important
15:17:14 [ericP]
15:17:16 [kjetil]
15:17:18 [AlexPassant]
15:17:18 [kasei]
15:17:19 [LeeF]
AxelPolleres: straw poll - would you want LimitPerResource GIVEN that we do not do subselects
15:17:20 [AndyS]
15:17:21 [john-l]
15:17:21 [AxelPolleres]
15:17:22 [SteveH_]
15:17:25 [LeeF]
15:17:26 [LukeWM]
15:17:28 [PrateekJain-WSU]
15:17:31 [SimonS]
15:17:38 [SteveH_]
[but we do do this a lot, but doing it without subselects would be crazy]
15:17:55 [LeeF]
topic: Basic federated queries
15:17:59 [kjetil]
Zakim, mute me
15:17:59 [Zakim]
kjetil should now be muted
15:18:03 [LeeF]
15:18:12 [LeeF]
AndyS: goal is to find minimal features needed to make federation happen
15:19:01 [LeeF]
... what's the minimal needed for one sparql endpoint to call out to another to get some results back
15:19:24 [LeeF]
... related thing for sending CONSTRUCT query to another processor as part of the FROM clause to get data in - can do that now with long URLs
15:19:43 [LeeF]
... very related to query parameters
15:19:49 [LeeF]
... very related to subqueries
15:19:54 [ericP]
q+ to say that he added the encode-this-and-append-to-graph-url functionality on the command line
15:20:01 [LeeF]
ack LeeF
15:20:01 [Zakim]
LeeF, you wanted to ask about relationship with subselect
15:20:06 [LeeF]
ack SteveH_
15:20:26 [LeeF]
AndyS: overall task in federated query is to find the right place to get a certain piece of information
15:20:52 [LeeF]
... missing piece is the ability to actually make the call to a remote service, that's the minimum required piece
15:21:22 [LeeF]
... ARQ does with SERVICE keyword, Virtuoso does it with pragma attached to subselect - mechanism less important than the feature
15:21:22 [AxelPolleres]
Axel: syntax to "execute federated query plans, yes?
15:21:38 [LeeF]
ack ericP
15:21:38 [Zakim]
ericP, you wanted to say that he added the encode-this-and-append-to-graph-url functionality on the command line
15:21:39 [ericP]
ack me
15:21:39 [SimonS]
q+ to say he does this using special named graphs
15:22:21 [LeeF]
ericP: HCLS group does a lot of query federation using my command line stuff
15:22:31 [LeeF]
... useful but not top priority
15:22:43 [LeeF]
SimonS: we define special named graphs that are evaluated remotely and then do subqueries against one or more remote endpoints
15:22:46 [LeeF]
... a lot of people use it
15:23:39 [LeeF]
15:23:40 [LeeF]
ack SimonS
15:23:40 [Zakim]
SimonS, you wanted to say he does this using special named graphs
15:23:47 [LeeF]
AxelPolleres: straw poll on basic federated query
15:23:48 [SimonS]
15:23:49 [kasei]
15:23:50 [kjetil]
15:23:51 [LukeWM]
15:23:51 [SteveH_]
0, useful, but very very scary
15:23:51 [AndyS]
15:23:51 [ericP]
15:23:53 [SimonS]
15:23:54 [john-l]
15:23:55 [PrateekJain-WSU]
15:23:55 [AlexPassant]
15:23:56 [LeeF]
15:23:59 [AxelPolleres]
15:24:50 [ericP]
john-l, i'm curious about your -1. issue of priorities, or serious concearns?
15:25:02 [LeeF]
ericP, you're not concerned about Luke's -1?
15:25:16 [john-l]
ericP: Just priorities.
15:25:23 [LeeF]
15:25:27 [ericP]
and LukeWM?
15:25:49 [LeeF]
topic: query by reference and parameters
15:25:58 [LeeF]
AxelPolleres: doesn't parameters need query by reference?
15:26:06 [ericP]
LeeF, shoudl i talk about SPARQLfed grammar?
15:26:11 [LeeF]
???: Parameters are useful without query by reference, for example for distributed joins
15:26:25 [SimonS]
15:26:49 [LukeWM]
ericP, my -1 was because I've just not come across any use cases for it day to day
15:27:00 [ericP]
15:27:03 [ericP]
15:28:02 [LeeF]
LeeF: query by ref might depend on parameters but not vice versa - params got some support, query by ref got no support (no +1s)
15:28:21 [LeeF]
SteveH_: are you going to change the survey to not say "make 8 votes"?
15:28:41 [LeeF]
AxelPolleres: yes, I will change the text to not be restricted to 8 votes
15:29:04 [LeeF]
AxelPolleres: AOB?
15:29:14 [LeeF]
15:29:27 [SteveH_]
15:29:31 [Zakim]
15:29:34 [Zakim]
15:29:35 [Zakim]
15:29:46 [Zakim]
15:29:48 [Zakim]
15:29:52 [Zakim]
15:30:35 [Zakim]
15:30:42 [Zakim]
15:30:57 [LeeF]
zakim, who's on the phone?
15:30:57 [Zakim]
On the phone I see AxelPolleres, LeeF, EricP, dnewman2
15:35:53 [Zakim]
15:35:54 [Zakim]
15:35:56 [Zakim]
15:36:08 [AxelPolleres]
rrsagent, make minutes
15:36:08 [RRSAgent]
I have made the request to generate AxelPolleres
15:37:49 [AxelPolleres]
anybody has an idea how I get the fancy minutes from
15:38:56 [AndyS]
Not sure (Lee does thr magice) but there is some manual work to get the straw poll summaries.
15:39:26 [AxelPolleres]
alright, I linked the draft minutes for the moment, Lee if you could do the magic, I'd appreciate.
15:39:49 [AxelPolleres]
survey is changed... query by ref out,
15:40:07 [AxelPolleres]
text doesn't say anything anymore about number of votes.
15:40:12 [AxelPolleres]
bye all
15:40:13 [AxelPolleres]
AxelPolleres has left #sparql
15:40:55 [Zakim]
disconnecting the lone participant, dnewman2, in SW_(SPARQL)10:00AM
15:40:59 [Zakim]
SW_(SPARQL)10:00AM has ended
15:41:00 [Zakim]
Attendees were john-l, SteveH, LukeWM, +34.91.664.aaaa, AxelPolleres, AndyS, +1.937.775.aabb, kasei, PrateekJain-WSU, kjetil, LeeF, JanneS, SimonS, +656304aacc, ywang4,
15:41:03 [Zakim]
... AlexPassant, EricP, dnewman2
15:48:43 [kasei]
kasei has left #sparql
16:19:31 [LukeWM]
LukeWM has joined #sparql
16:19:58 [SteveH]
SteveH has joined #sparql
17:57:02 [Zakim]
Zakim has left #sparql
19:02:40 [LeeF]
LeeF has joined #sparql