13:54:14 RRSAgent has joined #sparql 13:54:14 logging to http://www.w3.org/2009/06/09-sparql-irc 13:55:38 SW_(SPARQL)10:00AM has now started 13:55:46 + +539149aaaa 13:56:14 JacekK has joined #sparql 13:56:19 SteveH_ has joined #sparql 13:56:24 KjetilK, I've read http://www.w3.org/2009/sparql/docs/features/ and it's fully OK for me. Thank you. 13:56:41 iv_an_ru, great! 13:57:30 john-l has joined #sparql 13:57:33 AlexPassant, thank you too. 13:57:36 +??P19 13:57:39 zakim, ??p19 is me 13:57:45 +bijan; got it 13:58:00 +??P2 13:58:12 (and I'm sorry but I'm off today) 13:58:20 + +1.216.445.aabb 13:58:27 Zakim, aabb is me 13:58:27 +john-l; got it 13:58:35 + +005aacc 13:58:44 Zakim, what is the code? 13:58:44 the conference code is 77277 (tel:+1.617.761.6200 tel:+33.4.89.06.34.99 tel:+44.117.370.6152), KjetilK 13:58:45 bglimm has joined #SPARQL 13:58:47 hmm... Zakim usually recognizes me as IPCaller on this line. 13:58:53 +??P22 13:58:54 + +2 13:58:58 Zakim, aacc is me 13:58:58 +SimonS; got it 13:59:00 Zakim: ??P22 is [Garlik] 13:59:00 Zakim, ??P22 is me 13:59:03 +KjetilK; got it 13:59:09 SteveH_, are you sure? 13:59:12 Zakim, who is on the phone? 13:59:13 On the phone I see AxelPolleres?, bijan, ??P2, john-l, SimonS, KjetilK, +2 13:59:22 Prateek has joined #sparql 13:59:31 Zakim, who is talking 13:59:31 I don't understand 'who is talking', KjetilK 13:59:33 one of the unidentified ones is me. not sure which. 13:59:34 Zakim, who is talking? 13:59:44 KjetilK, listening for 10 seconds I heard sound from the following: 7 (7%), +2 (68%) 13:59:49 I'll hang up and try again 13:59:56 +bcuencagrau 14:00:02 JacekK has joined #sparql 14:00:03 pgearon has joined #sparql 14:00:05 Zakim, 2 is me 14:00:05 sorry, KjetilK, I do not recognize a party named '2' 14:00:08 LukeWM has joined #sparql 14:00:08 + +1.937.775.aaee 14:00:09 Zakim, + 2 is me 14:00:09 I don't understand '+ 2 is me', KjetilK 14:00:13 Zakim, +2 is me 14:00:13 +KjetilK; got it 14:00:17 Zakim, +2 is Kjetil 14:00:17 sorry, AxelPolleres, I do not recognize a party named '+2' 14:00:25 Zakim, P2 is me 14:00:25 sorry, kasei, I do not recognize a party named 'P2' 14:00:26 +??P41 14:00:27 Zakim, bcuencagrau is bglimm 14:00:27 Zakim, who's on the phone? 14:00:27 +bglimm; got it 14:00:28 On the phone I see AxelPolleres?, bijan, ??P2, john-l, SimonS, KjetilK, KjetilK.a, bglimm, +1.937.775.aaee, ??P41 14:00:33 zakim, ??P41 is me 14:00:33 +AndyS; got it 14:00:37 Zakim, ??P2 is me 14:00:39 +kasei; got it 14:00:42 chimezie has joined #sparql 14:00:43 Zakim: KjetilK is [Garlik] 14:00:46 Zakim, please dial ericP-office 14:00:46 ok, ericP; the call is being made 14:00:47 +EricP 14:00:48 Zakim, KjetilK is [Garlik] 14:00:49 +[Garlik]; got it 14:00:53 zakim, mute me 14:00:54 AndyS should now be muted 14:00:59 Zakim, [Garlik] has SteveH_ and LukeWM 14:00:59 +SteveH_, LukeWM; got it 14:01:05 np :) 14:01:05 +??P45 14:01:07 zakim, unmute me 14:01:07 AndyS should no longer be muted 14:01:09 zakim, ??P45 is me 14:01:10 +JacekK; got it 14:01:12 + +1.312.863.aaff 14:01:13 Zakim, mute me 14:01:18 KjetilK.a should now be muted 14:01:26 zakim, mute me 14:01:31 Zakim, mute me 14:01:32 Zakim, who is on the phone? 14:01:33 bglimm should now be muted 14:01:43 kasei should now be muted 14:01:43 zakim, +1.312.863.aaff is me 14:01:45 On the phone I see AxelPolleres?, bijan, kasei (muted), john-l, SimonS, [Garlik], KjetilK.a (muted), bglimm (muted), +1.937.775.aaee, AndyS, EricP, JacekK, +1.312.863.aaff 14:01:46 Zakim, EricP has EricP, LeeF 14:01:48 [Garlik] has SteveH_, LukeWM 14:01:50 +Chimezie_Ogbuji 14:01:52 +pgearon; got it 14:01:54 +EricP, LeeF; got it 14:02:13 Zakim, +1.937.775.aaee is Prateek 14:02:13 +Prateek; got it 14:02:45 Zakim, who is on the phone? 14:02:45 On the phone I see AxelPolleres?, bijan, kasei (muted), john-l, SimonS, [Garlik], KjetilK.a (muted), bglimm (muted), Prateek, AndyS, EricP, JacekK, pgearon, Chimezie_Ogbuji 14:02:50 LeeF has joined #sparql 14:02:52 EricP has EricP, LeeF 14:02:57 [Garlik] has SteveH_, LukeWM 14:03:04 http://www.w3.org/2009/sparql/wiki/Agenda-2009-06-09 14:03:45 scribe: JacekK 14:03:52 scribenick: JacekK 14:04:20 Zakim, unmute me 14:04:20 KjetilK.a should no longer be muted 14:04:43 next scribe: Kjetil (tentatively) 14:04:48 Zakim, mute me 14:04:48 KjetilK.a should now be muted 14:04:50 Regrets for next week for me [SemTech] 14:04:50 pgearon has joined #sparql 14:04:58 http://www.w3.org/2009/sparql/meeting/2009-06-02 14:05:11 Proposed: approve http://www.w3.org/2009/sparql/meeting/2009-06-02 14:05:20 RESOLUTION: last minutes approved 14:05:24 RESOLVED: http://www.w3.org/2009/sparql/meeting/2009-06-02 14:05:40 topic: liaisons 14:05:43 Nope 14:06:01 The OWL Specs are going to CR (for the interested) 14:06:14 ericP: nothing from xquery either 14:06:43 AxelPolleres: RIF's final specs will be discussed soon, otherwise nothing 14:06:55 AxelPolleres congratules on OWL CR 14:07:13 topic: actions 14:07:48 ACTION 10 DONE 14:07:48 Sorry, couldn't find user - 10 14:08:21 trackbot, close ACTION-10 14:08:30 ACTION-10 Talk to Eric to confirm minutes change from April 21 closed 14:09:13 KjetilK has changed the topic to: http://www.w3.org/2009/sparql/wiki/Agenda-2009-06-09 14:10:55 trackbot, close ACTION-23 14:10:55 ACTION-23 Summarize implicit vs. explicit grouping re ISSUE-11 closed 14:11:21 trackbot, close ACTION-34 14:11:21 ACTION-34 Summarize issue discussed in the end of the telecon regarding PUT closed 14:11:52 trackbot, close ACTION-35 14:12:18 http://www.w3.org/2009/sparql/docs/features/ 14:12:24 topic: features and rationales document 14:12:50 ACTION-35 Tell OWL/RIF that SPARQL is content with http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/wiki/PlainLiteral closed 14:13:07 AxelPolleres: most relevant things already in the document 14:13:13 Zakim, unmute me 14:13:13 KjetilK.a should no longer be muted 14:13:30 trackbot, close ACTION-21 14:13:34 ACTION-21 Summarize dataset issue w/ examples / suggestions per ISSUE-8 closed 14:13:46 +??P42 14:14:03 kjetil: we have pretty much all the text we require, with some open issues 14:14:31 q+ 14:14:38 kjetil goes over the document 14:15:17 kjetil: for related discussions, we simply link to the issue tracker 14:15:34 http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-dawg/2009AprJun/0346.html 14:15:45 (Andy's comments) 14:16:10 kjetil: none of the issues seem to be bloking, we could go to FPWD on what we have 14:16:46 kjetil: we should discuss if any issues need to be addressed before FPWD 14:16:48 q+ to suggest one week of review, then publish (even w/ unresolved issues) then refine 14:17:08 ?? 2nd and 3rd ?? Isn't it to be done by end July in prep for charter II? 14:17:31 q+ to suggest keeping the issues in the doc 14:17:37 LukeWM: some implementation text may not be correct (?) 14:17:48 ack LukeWM 14:18:16 I can make sure it is at least feasible, parser-wise. 14:18:21 kjetil: we may need better examples 14:18:55 ack LeeF 14:18:55 LeeF, you wanted to suggest one week of review, then publish (even w/ unresolved issues) then refine 14:19:19 I'll commit to review it and comment 14:19:30 LeeF: we need to get people to commit to comment on the doc (it's not long) 14:19:30 I can do the same 14:19:37 suggestion is to put remaining issue in ... as Editor's note? 14:19:48 my summary of issues: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-dawg/2009AprJun/0347.html 14:20:20 ericP: yes, we should make the open issues in a certain style so it's visible 14:20:34 ack AndyS 14:20:34 AndyS, you wanted to suggest keeping the issues in the doc 14:20:44 AndyS: the doc must be self-contained even if it's quite rough 14:21:00 ack me 14:21:13 AndyS: the summary up-front should be finished, frozen and time-stamped 14:21:33 AxelPolleres: it should be in the introduction, right? 14:21:48 ACTION: AxelPolleres to draft the introduction with a summary of the issues 14:21:48 Sorry, couldn't find user - AxelPolleres 14:21:58 ACTION: Axel to draft the introduction with a summary of the issues 14:21:58 Created ACTION-36 - Draft the introduction with a summary of the issues [on Axel Polleres - due 2009-06-16]. 14:22:36 AndyS: if the docs were on the wiki, it'd be easier to contribute text 14:23:01 The OWL WG edits their documents on the wiki and publishes directly from there, but that relies on a lot of SandroMagic (TM) 14:23:02 AxelPolleres: we decided for docs to be edited in CVS 14:23:07 if the document is in the wiki its harder to track changes 14:23:38 Why not use the Wiki for proposed text 14:23:43 AndyS: while we're trying to gather material, wiki would be better 14:23:44 and let the editors integrate it 14:24:01 What worked in RIF and OWL? 14:24:09 (worked well) 14:24:31 The OWL WG regularly refers to "Wiki maddness" 14:24:36 It was bad for publication 14:24:40 It was very annoying for editing 14:24:45 Brutal, really 14:25:27 OK - if the editors are prepared to "edit" not just "write" 14:25:39 bijan: wiki is good for tweaks by everybody 14:25:50 Sounds like it is not a good as it might be. 14:25:50 bijan: making systematic changes is harder, also seeing what you're doing is harder 14:26:07 bijan: wiki syntax is fragile 14:26:27 -kasei 14:26:37 AxelPolleres: so let's try to draft things on the wiki, and editors will incorporate that in the doc 14:26:44 bijan: that seems to be a reasonable model 14:27:12 zakim, who is speaking? 14:27:22 kjetil is speaking 14:27:22 JacekK, listening for 10 seconds I heard sound from the following: 14 (40%), AxelPolleres? (14%), AndyS (16%) 14:27:25 +??P2 14:27:41 Zakim, ??P2 is me 14:27:41 +kasei; got it 14:27:52 Zakim, mute me 14:27:52 kasei should now be muted 14:27:52 AxelPolleres: at this point, we need more reviewers and comments on the doc 14:28:01 AxelPolleres: everyone should review it, but we should have a few actions 14:28:11 volunteers - steve, chime 14:28:35 by end of week it tight, but I'll try 14:29:04 AxelPolleres: if the reviews arrive by end of week, we might already have a good almost-final material for the FPWD next week 14:29:40 AxelPolleres: for FPWD, we might just go with what we have with some refinement, or does somebody suggest we need a detailed review? 14:30:10 q+ 14:30:16 AndyS: I've done a single, not very complete, read-through 14:30:18 ack me 14:30:45 kjetil: people should also just have a look at the open issues (posted by Axel on my behalf) 14:31:00 kjetil: let's go through them quickly right now 14:31:08 kjetil: 1) we need a short name 14:31:10 http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-dawg/2009AprJun/0347.html 14:31:33 kjetil: 2) examples should be implemented (we should confirm this) 14:31:44 kjetil: 3) service descriptions should prolly be a section by itself 14:32:00 kjetil: 4) suggestion for new version of the protocol 14:32:18 We haven't explicitly discussed project expressions, which is why 14:32:28 kjetil: 5) we need to check project expressions if there should be some material 14:32:37 kjetil: 6) patent policy (?) 14:32:56 ericP: just the boiler plate, we need not think about it 14:33:09 I can name 2 project expression issues off the top of my head - syntax for expressions & whether expression alias names are required 14:33:13 kjetil: 7) some linking consistency 14:33:58 AxelPolleres: service descriptions in their own subsection - any objections? 14:34:07 s/subsection/section/ 14:34:17 q+ 14:34:19 +1 to serv descrip in own section, for the time being at least 14:34:31 it may end up having protocol aspects, or query aspects, or neither 14:34:38 +1 14:34:38 Zakim, unmute me 14:34:38 kasei should no longer be muted 14:35:18 kasei: the separate section might imply that implementors can deel with this modularly 14:35:53 Zakim, mute me 14:35:53 KjetilK.a should now be muted 14:35:56 kasei: somebody could implement query, protocol but not service descriptions 14:36:10 q+ 14:36:11 note that our short name is still subject to approval by the publication team (who make sure we don't call it xquery-foo) 14:36:30 Not sure I agree - the service description might be 3rd party (woudl like 1st party but realistically?) 14:36:30 ack kasei 14:36:38 ack LeeF 14:37:00 +1 14:37:03 +1 to own section "Service Description" 14:37:05 +1 LeeF 14:37:08 LeeF: for this document, it could be its own section; we don't need to say whether it belongs with either of the other parts 14:37:20 Zakim, mute me 14:37:20 kasei should now be muted 14:37:42 AxelPolleres: so we'll put svc descriptions in its own section, with an issue that it may belong to protocol or query 14:37:50 RESOLVED: we will have an own section "Service Description" 14:38:35 topic: service descriptions 14:38:45 AxelPolleres: we need a bit of a better idea on what we need 14:38:50 ISSUE: Is service description part of the protocol, the query language, or something else altogether? 14:39:06 AxelPolleres: we have several proposals 14:39:48 AxelPolleres: 1) the issue was discussed already a long time ago in WG1 14:39:56 http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/DataAccess/ftf4.html#item10 14:40:19 AxelPolleres: the first WG's ftf4 lists some proposals 14:40:36 AxelPolleres: the f&r doc could use some of that, e.g. for use cases 14:41:04 http://www.w3.org/2009/sparql/track/issues/23 14:41:09 AxelPolleres: the issue on media types & conneg is related 14:41:59 http://www.w3.org/2009/sparql/meeting/2009-05-06#Full__2d_text_search 14:42:17 AxelPolleres: there are two directions - the hard one to go through existing descriptions and recommend something, the easier one just to enable hooks for description without specifying the content 14:42:28 AxelPolleres: we could just provide the mechanism and some examples 14:43:29 +1 to small (minimal) framework + *suggestions* to use other vocabs 14:43:29 q+ 14:43:41 ericP: an endpoint might support DESCRIBE or similar queries about itself 14:44:20 ericP: we may want to write down some obvious things, such as a class of SPARQL endpoints 14:44:40 q+ to mention 3rd party use 14:44:48 SteveH_: I have problems with packing it into the query; with gateways it's hard to know what the URI of the actual endpoint is 14:44:56 ack SteveH_ 14:45:21 I was a pretty strong advocate of service description, so I should also say that I strongly support doing whatever we see as minimal guidance to encourage people to start describing their endpoints/services :-) 14:45:23 SteveH_: I'm also uncomfortable about requiring some data to be in the endpoint 14:45:30 q+ to ask whether we could obtain the service description by simply Get [entpoint] requesting mime type rdf/xml? 14:45:37 SteveH_: must prefer an HTTP header that would point to the description 14:45:43 q+ to suggest HTTP OPTIONS 14:46:09 in addition to an Endpoint class, I'd think at minimum we should define properties for extension points (functions, possibly entailment regimes) 14:46:11 ericP: if we have the description, then we'd also want an endpoint that can query them 14:46:44 SteveH_: if the HTTP header gives you a URI, you can just do FROM that URI 14:46:45 heh 14:47:03 ericP: I find it easier to specify graphs than to add HTTP headers 14:47:22 SOAP? 14:47:24 SteveH_: it took me less than an hour to add the header, but embedding dynamic data in the endpoint is harder 14:47:28 Zakim, who is on the queue? 14:47:28 I see AndyS, AxelPolleres, JacekK on the speaker queue 14:47:48 ericP: the header may also not make it through proxies 14:48:22 ericP: I meant it's difficult to specify the HTTP header, not to implement it - we'd need to involve IETF, HTTP extensibility, RFC iterations... 14:48:30 What is the Atom precedence here? 14:48:43 AndyS: some use cases, where the endpoint is not the one offering the description 14:48:52 AndyS: a repository (UDDI-like situation) 14:48:56 that's an interesting one. 14:49:14 AndyS: all discussion now has focused on the endpoint describing itself 14:49:25 chimezie, good question 14:49:34 AxelPolleres: is there an issue in the authority of descriptions? 14:49:59 Atom appears to have an explicit 'service document' with a known URI 14:50:02 AxelPolleres: what's the use case for 3rd party description of an endpoint? 14:50:07 chimezie, EliasT tells me that Atom Publishing Protocol (APP) has a well-known service.xml file 14:50:58 Yeah, i'm looking to see if the URI for this service document is 'hardcoded' or can be discovered via introspection of some kind 14:51:06 Currently - It is not part of the protocol. Must have "query=" 14:51:17 ericP: query is a required parameter 14:51:36 AxelPolleres: could we add a new behavior there? 14:51:48 chimezie, he says you can find it via a meta tag in HTML 14:52:01 ericP: it's currently an error, and our WSDL description would then be "everything-optional" 14:52:02 hmmm.. 14:52:25 Zakim, who is on the queue? 14:52:25 I see AndyS, AxelPolleres, JacekK on the speaker queue 14:52:28 ericP: but an error could be reasonable if the request is not recognized - an old system 14:52:34 ack AndyS 14:52:34 AndyS, you wanted to mention 3rd party use 14:52:43 ack AxelPolleres 14:52:43 AxelPolleres, you wanted to ask whether we could obtain the service description by simply Get [entpoint] requesting mime type rdf/xml? 14:52:53 chimezie, EliasT points me to http://www.ibm.com/developerworks/xml/library/x-atomsidebar/index.html 14:52:58 [[[ 14:52:58 How Service Documents are discovered is not defined in this 14:52:59 specification. 14:53:02 ]]] -- Atom Pub 14:53:10 JacekK: one of the ways to get the description would be HTTP OPTIONS 14:53:17 http://www.w3.org/Protocols/rfc2616/rfc2616-sec9.html 14:53:22 OPTIONs 14:53:41 I wouldn't knw where to start to implement something via OPTION 14:53:50 Do you get content neg on OPTIONs? 14:53:56 http://www.w3.org/Protocols/rfc2616/rfc2616-sec9#sec9.2 14:54:05 q? 14:54:08 ack JacekK 14:54:08 JacekK, you wanted to suggest HTTP OPTIONS 14:54:11 AndyS, yes 14:54:25 OPTION * is tricky but otherwise servelet API would route it. 14:54:28 Thx Steve 14:54:32 JacekK: OPTIONS is used to discover, for example, which of GET/POST/PUT/DELETE is available 14:54:43 might run into trouble using OPTION in many www client APIs 14:54:48 JacekK: HTTP currently doesn't specify what can be returned as the body of the response 14:55:11 AxelPolleres: time is running out, any volunteer to summarize this in an email, or the wiki? 14:55:39 ericP: steve and I should have an argument on the wiki 14:56:00 ericP: but I'll be quite busy the upcoming weeks 14:56:13 SteveH_: I've already put my thoughts on the wiki 14:56:36 kjetil has joined #sparql 14:56:44 SteveH_: I didn't add anything about the query language stuff, not expecting that we'd even consider it 14:57:28 ACTION: Eric to add to http://www.w3.org/2009/sparql/wiki/Feature:ServiceDescriptions about different options to serve descriptions 14:57:35 It seems like a comprehensive set of usecases might frame this discussion better (so we aren't talking about open-ended service descriptions, but descriptions of specific SPARQL-related services) 14:58:04 bijan: what did you mean by the query lang stuff? 14:58:13 ACTION: Jacek to add to http://www.w3.org/2009/sparql/wiki/Feature:ServiceDescriptions about different options to serve descriptions (specifically HTTP OPTION) 14:58:22 s/bijan/LeeF 14:58:30 SteveH_: syntax extensions, but it's a bit of a chicken-and-egg problem - you need to know what lang is allowed before you could ask for the description 14:59:11 Eric: at least type sparqlendpoint 14:59:25 Orri: each feature should have a URI. 14:59:35 http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-dawg/2009AprJun/0299.html 14:59:44 I'm here 15:00:15 AxelPolleres: we prolly don't want to standardize a full description language 15:00:20 -john-l 15:00:28 AxelPolleres: a Note could be an option 15:00:33 q+ to mention vocabulary 15:00:36 Zakim, unmute me 15:00:36 kasei should no longer be muted 15:00:41 -Chimezie_Ogbuji 15:01:08 Orri: void good for the data, but we need to extend for the query language/endpoitn capabilities 15:01:37 kasei: agree that we should have a class for endpoints, and I'd add a property for saying "this endpoint supports this extension function" and maybe other extensions (entailment regimes etc.) 15:01:39 Kasei: we need URIs for extension functions supported, entailment regimes. 15:01:46 +1 15:01:52 +1 15:01:59 Zakim, mute me 15:01:59 kasei should now be muted 15:02:06 http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/DataAccess/ftf4.html#item10 15:02:29 AxelPolleres: the link mentions some of what we've discussed 15:02:56 AxelPolleres: did saddle come from that discussion? 15:03:14 SteveH has joined #sparql 15:03:15 s/saddle/SADDL 15:03:16 i think 15:03:20 I can write up a brief proposal 15:03:25 AxelPolleres: volunteers for reviewing the old discussion? 15:03:33 AxelPolleres: thanks kasei 15:03:42 -bglimm 15:03:43 -??P42 15:03:45 telcon done 15:03:46 -EricP 15:03:47 -bijan 15:03:47 -pgearon 15:03:50 -JacekK 15:03:52 -SimonS 15:03:54 -AndyS 15:03:56 -KjetilK.a 15:03:58 -Prateek 15:04:09 ACTION: Kasei to start with a proposal for service descriptions to trigger mail discussion 15:04:22 -kasei 15:04:23 SimonS has left #sparql 15:04:44 Zakim, list attendees 15:04:44 As of this point the attendees have been +539149aaaa, AxelPolleres?, bijan, +1.216.445.aabb, john-l, +005aacc, SimonS, bglimm, AndyS, kasei, SteveH_, LukeWM, JacekK, 15:04:47 I'll take care of that, JacekK 15:04:47 ... Chimezie_Ogbuji, pgearon, EricP, LeeF, Prateek 15:04:49 Axel: does that include both vocab and access mechanism? 15:04:52 rrsagent, draft minutes 15:04:52 I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2009/06/09-sparql-minutes.html AxelPolleres 15:04:53 thanks for scribing! 15:05:00 sure thing! 8-) 15:05:13 the discussion at the end was vocab, and it seemed some of the access stuff was covered by another action. 15:05:13 bye all 15:05:16 LeeF, something like[[ SELECT ?v { <> void:description ?v } ]] would pass through proxies 'cause you only need to call the service <> 15:05:53 wait, that'd be base 15:05:54 kasei: my personal opinion, vocab is covered partially already by others, let's check what is necessary, but NOT covered byt things like void. 15:06:06 rrsagent, draft minutes 15:06:06