13:55:50 RRSAgent has joined #sparql 13:55:50 logging to http://www.w3.org/2009/04/21-sparql-irc 13:55:52 RRSAgent, make logs world 13:55:52 Zakim has joined #sparql 13:55:54 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 Zakim, this will be 77277 13:55:54 ok, trackbot; I see SW_(SPARQL)10:00AM scheduled to start in 5 minutes 13:55:55 Meeting: SPARQL Working Group Teleconference 13:55:56 Date: 21 April 2009 13:56:03 s/Date:/ Date: 13:56:06 Chair: AxelPolleres 13:56:09 Scribe: LeeF 13:56:11 LukeWM has joined #sparql 13:56:11 Scribenick: LeeF 13:56:22 SW_(SPARQL)10:00AM has now started 13:56:26 Agenda: http://www.w3.org/2009/sparql/wiki/Agenda-2009-04-21 13:56:28 +john-l 13:56:36 SteveH_ has joined #sparql 13:56:40 Regrets: Chimezie, Bijan 13:56:50 +??P3 13:56:58 Zakim, ??P3 is [Garlik] 13:56:58 +[Garlik]; got it 13:57:07 Zakim, [Garlik] has SteveH, LukeWM 13:57:07 +SteveH, LukeWM; got it 13:57:12 + +34.91.664.aaaa 13:57:39 Zakim, who's on the phone? 13:57:39 On the phone I see john-l, [Garlik], +34.91.664.aaaa 13:57:41 [Garlik] has SteveH, LukeWM 13:57:46 +??P9 13:57:54 zakim, ??P9 is me 13:57:54 +AndyS; got it 13:58:11 Zakim just hung up on me :( 13:58:12 Maybe. zakim did not speak the full messages 13:58:28 zakim, please mute me 13:58:28 AndyS should now be muted 13:58:39 zakim, please unmute me 13:58:39 AndyS should no longer be muted 13:59:07 Zakim, who is on the phone? 13:59:07 On the phone I see john-l, [Garlik], AxelPolleres, AndyS 13:59:08 [Garlik] has SteveH, LukeWM 13:59:11 + +1.937.775.aabb 13:59:12 +kasei 13:59:12 +Lee_Feigenbaum 13:59:21 Zakim, mute me 13:59:22 kasei should now be muted 13:59:26 SimonS has joined #sparql 13:59:53 four 13:59:58 zakim, aabb is Prateek 13:59:58 +Prateek; got it 14:00:09 Hi This is Prateek Jain,937 775 4638 14:00:11 JanneS has joined #sparql 14:00:27 zakim, Prateek is PrateekJain-WSU 14:00:27 +PrateekJain-WSU; got it 14:00:45 +??P19 14:00:52 Zakim, ??P19 is me 14:00:52 +kjetil; got it 14:00:54 zakim, mute me please 14:00:54 Lee_Feigenbaum should now be muted 14:00:58 Zakim, who is on the phone? 14:00:58 On the phone I see john-l, [Garlik], AxelPolleres, AndyS, PrateekJain-WSU, kasei (muted), Lee_Feigenbaum (muted), kjetil 14:00:59 Zakim, mute me 14:01:00 [Garlik] has SteveH, LukeWM 14:01:00 kjetil should now be muted 14:01:07 +JanneS 14:01:09 +SimonS 14:02:17 Zakim, who is on the phone? 14:02:17 On the phone I see john-l, [Garlik], AxelPolleres, AndyS, PrateekJain-WSU, kasei (muted), LeeF (muted), kjetil (muted), JanneS, SimonS 14:02:19 [Garlik] has SteveH, LukeWM 14:02:46 AxelPolleres: plan today is to get through the rest of the features from the wiki and go over Web survey 14:03:05 ... 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 topic: Admin 14:03:23 PROPOSED: Approve minutes at http://www.w3.org/2009/sparql/meeting/2009-04-14 14:03:29 RESOLVED: Approve minutes at http://www.w3.org/2009/sparql/meeting/2009-04-14 14:03:52 next meeting: one week from today, 28 Apr, will talk about F2F details 14:04:03 scribe for next meeting: Ivan M 14:04:29 topic: Liaisons: 14:04:37 ywang4 has joined #sparql 14:04:41 s/Liaisons:/Liaisons 14:04:55 AxelPolleres: rdf:text is basically finished, not sure when it will go to Last Call 14:05:07 http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/wiki/InternationalizedStringSpec 14:05:09 ... if we want to review it, it would be great 14:05:13 I volunteer (not exclusively) 14:05:34 tentative volunteer, but I can't promise 14:05:38 ACTION: AndyS to review rdf:text 14:05:39 Created ACTION-8 - Review rdf:text [on Andy Seaborne - due 2009-04-28]. 14:05:44 ACTION: SteveH to try to review rdf:text 14:05:44 Created ACTION-9 - Try to review rdf:text [on Steve Harris - due 2009-04-28]. 14:05:57 AndyS: there will be substantive issues based on what I've seen 14:06:29 + +656304aacc 14:06:44 zakim, aacc is ywang4 14:06:44 +ywang4; got it 14:06:45 AlexPassant has joined #sparql 14:07:14 +??P39 14:07:15 AxelPolleres: RIF WG had F2F in Cambridge last week 14:07:25 ... plan is to go to LC by end of May 14:07:25 Zakim, ??P39 is me 14:07:25 +AlexPassant; got it 14:07:35 ... will appreciate SPARQL WG reviews then 14:07:43 Zakim, please dial ericP-office 14:07:43 ok, ericP; the call is being made 14:07:45 +EricP 14:07:55 q+ to ask about 90 min. teleconference? 14:08:43 ericP: HCLS group is doing stuff with federated queries 14:10:37 ack LeeF 14:10:37 LeeF, you wanted to ask about 90 min. teleconference? 14:10:50 I'll drop out after 60, sorry 14:12:04 topic: introduction, Prateek 14:12:15 PrateekJain-WSU: PhD student at Wright State work wtih Amit Sheth 14:12:23 ... research is in the area of query rewriting with emphasis on SPARQL 14:12:35 ... trying to exploit semantic relationships within a knowledge base to automatically rewrite SPARQL 14:13:13 ... interested in rdf serialization of queries and path queries 14:13:44 topic: feature survey 14:13:53 http://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35463/features/ 14:14:04 AxelPolleres: Each organization can fill out the survey once 14:14:26 ...we will probably have around 8 features which we will aim for in the working group 14:14:41 ...the survey lists 31 features that survived the "interested for anyone" criteria 14:15:08 ...format of the survey was limited by what the WBS survey gave us 14:15:44 ...options for each feature are ranks 1 - 31 and "don't mind" and "don't want" 14:15:58 ...do not rank all features 14:16:06 ...rank up to the first 8 of your choices 14:16:13 q+ 14:16:19 ack AndyS 14:16:39 q+ 14:16:55 AndyS: are you going to enforce the limit? 14:17:07 ack AndyS 14:17:14 q+ 14:17:24 LeeF: we will ask anyone who ranks more than 8 to adjust their choices to only rank 8 14:17:34 ack SteveH_ 14:18:20 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 q+ 14:18:52 q+ to say that i'd be happy with ranking more than 8, just not all 31 14:21:01 q+ to ask if the rank algorithm can't account for people ranking all 14:21:20 ack me 14:21:21 SteveH_: voting shouldn't have any different weight just because you rank 4 vs. ranking 30 14:21:22 kjetil, you wanted to ask if the rank algorithm can't account for people ranking all 14:21:23 +dnewman2 14:21:26 q- 14:21:46 kjetil: if we use ranking algorithm, people can rank as many as they which 14:22:12 dnewman2 has joined #sparql 14:23:24 q+ 14:24:32 I prefer using a ranking algorithm. 14:25:21 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 AndyS: Concerned that everyone be playing by the same rules 14:25:48 AxelPolleres: i think if we use a threshold like 12 or so we can compromise 14:25:52 LeeF, things like Condorcet don't give any advantage to ballot stuffers 14:27:11 Here's a site we can use for the final ballot: http://www.cs.cornell.edu/andru/civs.html 14:27:25 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 or, alternative: http://plugin.org.uk/rdf/condorcet/ 14:28:36 I'm not comfortable at all with approving a specific ranking to drive things forwards 14:28:44 s/I'm not/LeeF: I'm not/ 14:29:10 we don't need the threashold 14:29:21 q? 14:29:29 ack me 14:29:56 SteveH_: with condorcet you're only voting against yourself 14:30:25 ... rank the features you want in the order you'd like them and then we can analyze the data 14:30:48 hearing lots of interference on kjetil(?) 14:31:29 for ref. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Condorcet_Method 14:32:15 no tactical voting? i quit! 14:32:30 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 kjetil: it's just about the relative preference 14:34:45 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 AxelPolleres: suggested deadline for filling out the survey is May 1 14:35:11 Zakim, mute me 14:35:11 kjetil should now be muted 14:35:18 the vote page has April-28 set as the deadline 14:35:27 i would like to propose a new voting scheme 14:35:32 it uses parameterized owl entailment 14:35:49 LeeF: encourages everyone to fill out the survey as soon as you feel ready to 14:36:22 -> http://www.w3.org/2009/sparql/wiki/SPARQLX 14:37:48 strawman from bijan: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-dawg/2009AprJun/0089.html 14:38:14 q+ to say i've had people use an XML expression of queries 14:38:15 That is SPARQL algebra in XML , not SPARQL AST 14:38:38 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 AndyS: abstract syntax need to be formally addressed if we do pragmas 14:39:24 http://www.w3.org/2009/sparql/wiki/Feature:Pragmas 14:40:28 AndyS: TopQuadrant uses an RDF serialization to store queries 14:40:46 +1 to two 14:41:01 +1 on two 14:41:14 i'm 0 on XML and -1 on RDF ('cause it's so concentious) 14:41:15 My requirement is to get the abstraction right and do XML, JSON, another 14:42:09 +q 14:42:17 ack ericP 14:42:17 ericP, you wanted to say i've had people use an XML expression of queries 14:42:30 ack SimonS 14:42:39 Prateek: we are looking at SPIN for some of our work 14:42:44 q+ to warn of contentious issues 14:42:55 SimonS: can see use cases for RDF serialization of SPARQL, don't have any use cases for XML 14:43:25 was the motivation to query sparql via sparql? 14:43:49 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 q? 14:43:55 ack ericP 14:43:55 ericP, you wanted to warn of contentious issues 14:43:56 kind of. Rather composing SPARQL queries at runtime from RDF data 14:44:00 q- 14:44:32 upshot: whatever we do, we don't want people expressing their data in RDF 14:44:43 s/upshot:/ upshot: 14:45:00 AxelPolleres: straw poll on RDF serialization of SPARQL queries 14:45:01 -1 14:45:02 -1, it's a minefield 14:45:03 0 14:45:03 0 14:45:04 +1 14:45:05 -1 14:45:05 sounds like closure to the extreme i.e. sparql query result could be a valid sparql query 14:45:07 0 14:45:07 0 14:45:08 0 14:45:09 0 14:45:09 0 14:45:09 0 14:45:12 0 would be nice, but difficult 14:45:39 AxelPolleres: straw poll on XML serialization of SPARQL queries 14:45:48 +1 14:45:49 0 14:45:50 0 14:45:51 0 14:45:52 0, could be useful, but not huge usecases for us 14:45:52 +1 14:45:53 0 14:45:55 0 14:45:56 0 14:45:56 +1 14:45:58 -0 14:45:58 0 14:46:00 0 14:46:12 bijan is a +1 by proxy, I'm positive 14:47:32 topic: FunctionLibrary 14:47:37 -> http://www.w3.org/2009/sparql/wiki/Feature:FunctionLibrary 14:48:24 Related here http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wiki/DTB 14:48:51 http://www.w3.org/TR/xpath-functions/ 14:49:03 http://jena.sourceforge.net/ARQ/library-function.html 14:49:31 q+ to talk about existing extensibility 14:50:05 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 ericP: we did spend some time testing last time to make sure that extension functions work in a sane way 14:50:23 +1 to ericP 14:50:41 Significant value. Reuse F&O where possible. Fix a set of functions expected everywhere - not too large to ensure universal coverage. 14:50:56 +1 to AndyS too 14:52:22 AxelPolleres: the question here is whether the WG should expand the list of built-in functions 14:53:04 AxelPolleres: straw poll on working on extending function library 14:53:12 0 14:53:13 +1 14:53:14 +1 14:53:14 =1 14:53:15 +1 but low priority 14:53:16 0 14:53:17 +1 14:53:17 +1 even 14:53:17 +1 14:53:18 0 14:53:20 0 14:53:23 +1 14:53:29 +1 14:53:30 0 14:53:46 (but yeah, at the end) 14:53:49 http://www.w3.org/2009/sparql/wiki/Feature:CreatingIrisAndLiterals 14:53:50 topic: FullText 14:53:58 Zakim, unmute me 14:53:58 kjetil should no longer be muted 14:54:22 http://www.w3.org/2009/sparql/wiki/Feature:FullText 14:54:43 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 ... you need someway to communicate a search down to SPARQL endpoint 14:54:56 s/someway/some way 14:55:10 ... we could standardize in several ways here 14:55:34 ... could have a function in function library 14:55:54 ... could also use xpath/xquery text functions 14:56:03 q+ to ask about XPath fulltext v's regex 14:56:05 ... users might want to search more than just one literal 14:56:19 q+ to talke about XQ full text 14:56:20 q+ to ask about xpath compared with lucene and to note potential contention 14:56:25 q+ to ask about redundancy wrt regex 14:56:30 q+ to say it's not a library function 14:56:37 q- 14:56:39 kjetil: lots of possibilities but think this is important for interoperability 14:57:08 SteveH_: I read the xpath full text specification - more complicated than I thought it would be 14:57:12 -> http://www.w3.org/TR/2008/CR-xpath-full-text-10-20080516/#section-ftcontainsexpr-examples xpath full text examples 14:57:38 ... this is more complex than just referring to xpath spec, because there's a lot there that is xpath-specific 14:57:49 ... on the other end of a scale, LIKE syntax is just syntactic sugar over regex 14:58:07 SteveH_: similarity to LIKE 14:58:26 ... 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 http://www.w3.org/2009/sparql/wiki/Feature:FullText doesn't mention regex 14:58:52 what uses cases does regex not support? 14:58:57 kjetil: Virtuoso feels that it is harder to implement regular expressions than full text 14:59:01 ericP, stemming for one 14:59:15 AndyS: i think XQuery full text is too big, too complicated 14:59:24 ... it's important to ensure that existing tools, not just lucene, can be used 14:59:38 q? 14:59:39 ack SteveH_ 14:59:40 SteveH_, you wanted to ask about XPath fulltext v's regex 14:59:41 ack AndyS 14:59:41 AndyS, you wanted to talke about XQ full text and to say it's not a library function 14:59:58 AndyS: this is not just a library function - it's not a restriction, since it's generative from an index 15:00:06 ... "find me all the things that match 'x'" 15:00:17 ... "find me all the URIs of documents that contain the following string" 15:00:53 ... concerned that scripting engines end up with a real burden to implement this 15:00:56 not just smaller implementations, the only impl. of XPath fulltext i've seen is huge 15:00:56 ack LeeF 15:00:56 LeeF, you wanted to ask about xpath compared with lucene and to note potential contention 15:01:11 the scripting people can be incomplete. doesn't really matter except for bragging rights 15:01:56 ericP: it matters for portability between scripting and the bigger impls. 15:02:42 kasei, i think that's an argument for then being sound, but not complete 15:03:29 q+ 15:03:34 q+ to say most existing implementations seem quite similar 15:03:48 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: i see a strong case for interoperability here, but also see a huge amount of work to standardize this well 15:04:15 AndyS: there are other things to consider as well, such as scoring of results 15:04:21 I don't want to see a world where we end up just standardising lucene syntax 15:04:32 AxelPolleres: seems that xpath/xquery might be too heavy for us, as opposed to aligning what existing implementations do 15:04:45 q+ to ask if lucene is a strict subset of xpath:ftcontains 15:04:46 ack to SteveH_ -- starting point only 15:05:12 ericP, it's not no 15:05:25 q? 15:05:31 ack AxelPolleres 15:05:31 AxelPolleres, you wanted to ask about redundancy wrt regex 15:05:33 ack kjetil 15:06:08 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 Maybe good to add some clear syntax to make it easier to understand for query writers 15:06:17 (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 burden will be on us to prove that it's not covered by subsetting ftcontains 15:06:44 q- 15:07:12 SimonS: most implementations I know are very close to or based on Lucene - that seems to be what people want 15:07:17 ... syntax extensions are similar as well 15:07:25 or, what implemetors found it easiest to build 15:07:29 (uh, BasicFederatedQuery deserves the protocol extensions is my +1 for both, no comment on LimitPerResource yet) - bye 15:07:56 -JanneS 15:08:29 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 -ywang4 15:09:24 AndyS: to be pragmatic, i don't want to put an xquery parser inside my sparql impl 15:09:36 see you next time :) 15:09:40 ywang4 has left #sparql 15:10:02 SteveH_: it would be tough to separate e.g. how it refers to rdf literals rather than xml nodes 15:10:38 --> http://www.w3.org/TR/xpath-full-text-10/#id-grammar 15:10:39 AxelPolleres: straw poll on full text 15:10:45 q? 15:10:47 q- 15:10:48 ack SimonS 15:10:49 SimonS, you wanted to say most existing implementations seem quite similar 15:10:49 ack ericP 15:10:56 q- 15:11:00 +1 15:11:01 0 15:11:02 AxelPolleres: straw poll on full text 15:11:02 0 15:11:04 +1 15:11:08 -1 15:11:08 0 15:11:10 +1 15:11:10 +1 15:11:11 0 15:11:11 +1 15:11:13 +1 15:11:17 0, against my better judgment which says +1 15:11:21 nice 15:11:56 i'm surprised. usally "better judgement" is aligned with discresion 15:11:58 topic: LimitPerResource 15:12:28 http://www.w3.org/2009/sparql/wiki/Feature:LimitPerResource 15:13:12 AlexPassant: proposal is to find a way to limit solutions not by tuples but by distinct instances of a resource 15:13:19 ... example syntax on wiki page 15:13:42 q+ 15:13:49 ack kjetil 15:13:56 kjetil: this is the single most important feature for us 15:14:08 q+ to ask about relationship with subselect 15:14:25 q+ on whether thisis an issue for surface syntax 15:14:29 kjetil: you don't know in advance how many rows you expect back 15:15:09 q- 15:15:15 q+ 15:15:30 LeeF: is it true that if sparql has subselects then limitperresource is syntactic sugar? 15:15:39 SteveH_: you also need grouping/limiting operations 15:16:25 ... in other cases besides http://www.w3.org/2009/sparql/wiki/Feature:LimitPerResource#Related_Use_Cases.2FExtensions you need a grouping operator 15:16:40 AxelPolleres: Alex & Kjetil would you be happy if this was subsumed by subselect? 15:16:48 kjetil: yes, if we do subselect 15:16:57 let's do a strawpoll conditional to subselects 15:16:58 AlexPassant: yes, it's the capability itself that is important 15:17:14 0 15:17:16 +1 15:17:18 +1 15:17:18 +1 15:17:19 AxelPolleres: straw poll - would you want LimitPerResource GIVEN that we do not do subselects 15:17:20 -1 15:17:21 +1 15:17:21 0 15:17:22 -1 15:17:25 0 15:17:26 0 15:17:28 0 15:17:31 0 15:17:38 [but we do do this a lot, but doing it without subselects would be crazy] 15:17:55 topic: Basic federated queries 15:17:59 Zakim, mute me 15:17:59 kjetil should now be muted 15:18:03 http://www.w3.org/2009/sparql/wiki/Feature:BasicFederatedQuery 15:18:12 AndyS: goal is to find minimal features needed to make federation happen 15:19:01 ... what's the minimal needed for one sparql endpoint to call out to another to get some results back 15:19:24 ... 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 ... very related to query parameters 15:19:49 ... very related to subqueries 15:19:54 q+ to say that he added the encode-this-and-append-to-graph-url functionality on the command line 15:20:01 ack LeeF 15:20:01 LeeF, you wanted to ask about relationship with subselect 15:20:06 ack SteveH_ 15:20:26 AndyS: overall task in federated query is to find the right place to get a certain piece of information 15:20:52