IRC log of sparql on 2009-09-15

Timestamps are in UTC.

13:53:23 [RRSAgent]
RRSAgent has joined #sparql
13:53:23 [RRSAgent]
logging to
13:53:25 [trackbot]
RRSAgent, make logs world
13:53:25 [Zakim]
Zakim has joined #sparql
13:53:27 [trackbot]
Zakim, this will be 77277
13:53:27 [Zakim]
ok, trackbot; I see SW_(SPARQL)10:00AM scheduled to start in 7 minutes
13:53:28 [trackbot]
Meeting: SPARQL Working Group Teleconference
13:53:29 [trackbot]
Date: 15 September 2009
13:53:30 [LeeF]
zakim, this will be SPARQL
13:53:30 [Zakim]
LeeF, Team_(sparql-func)13:02Z is already associated with an irc channel; use 'move SPARQL to here' if you mean to reassociate the channel
13:53:34 [LeeF]
Chair: LeeF
13:54:40 [LeeF]
LukeWM, are you available as backup scribe if necessary?
13:54:48 [LeeF]
hmm, the scribe list is getting a little unmaintained
13:55:01 [LukeWM]
yes, sure LeeF
13:55:27 [AndyS]
SimonS - I don't think it has been created. Coudl you create a file in that dir and cvs ci it in (CVS knows nothing about directories :-()
13:55:49 [LeeF]
thanks, LukeWM
13:56:03 [SimonS]
ok, thanks AndyS
13:56:41 [Zakim]
SW_(SPARQL)10:00AM has now started
13:56:47 [Zakim]
13:57:01 [AndyS]
zakim, ??P2 is me
13:57:01 [Zakim]
+AndyS; got it
13:57:04 [Zakim]
+ +1.617.960.aaaa
13:57:23 [LeeF]
zakim, aaaa is me
13:57:24 [Zakim]
+LeeF; got it
13:57:42 [Zakim]
13:58:03 [AlexPassant]
AlexPassant has joined #sparql
13:58:19 [kasei]
is today a 90 minute call?
13:58:29 [Zakim]
+ +049261287aabb
13:58:40 [SimonS]
Zakim, aabb is me
13:58:40 [Zakim]
+SimonS; got it
13:58:53 [Zakim]
13:58:56 [Zakim]
13:58:57 [AlexPassant]
Zakim, ?P22 is me
13:58:57 [Zakim]
sorry, AlexPassant, I do not recognize a party named '?P22'
13:59:02 [AlexPassant]
Zakim, ??P22 is me
13:59:02 [Zakim]
+AlexPassant; got it
13:59:28 [LukeWM]
zakim, ??P24 is Garlik
13:59:28 [Zakim]
+Garlik; got it
13:59:32 [bglimm]
bglimm has joined #SPARQL
13:59:35 [AlexPassant]
13:59:39 [LeeF]
Scribe: AlexPassant
13:59:42 [LeeF]
Scribenick: AlexPassant
13:59:55 [LukeWM]
zakim, Garlik has LukeWM,SteveH
14:00:01 [LeeF]
zakim, who's on the phone?
14:00:04 [Zakim]
+LukeWM, SteveH; got it
14:00:06 [Zakim]
On the phone I see AndyS, LeeF, kasei, SimonS, AlexPassant, Garlik
14:00:08 [Zakim]
Garlik has LukeWM, SteveH
14:00:14 [Zakim]
+ +0186528aacc
14:00:25 [bglimm]
Zakim, +0186528aacc is bglimm
14:00:30 [Zakim]
+bglimm; got it
14:00:31 [ivan]
zakim, dial ivan-voip
14:00:32 [Zakim]
ok, ivan; the call is being made
14:00:34 [Zakim]
14:00:39 [bglimm]
Zakim, mute me
14:00:42 [Zakim]
bglimm should now be muted
14:01:12 [Zakim]
14:01:24 [Zakim]
14:01:40 [ivan]
zakim, mute me
14:02:06 [Zakim]
Ivan should now be muted
14:02:12 [kasei]
Zakim, mute me
14:02:18 [AxelPolleres]
zakim, mute me
14:02:40 [Zakim]
kasei should now be muted
14:02:42 [Zakim]
+ +1.540.412.aadd
14:02:48 [Zakim]
AxelPolleres should now be muted
14:03:00 [pgearon]
Zakim, aadd is me
14:03:06 [kasei]
muting with Zakim is going to be a hassle if it's always this slow...
14:03:10 [AxelPolleres]
Zakim, unmute me
14:03:26 [ivan]
zakim, unmute me
14:03:29 [chimezie]
chimezie has joined #sparql
14:03:34 [Zakim]
+pgearon; got it
14:03:41 [chimezie]
zakim, mute me
14:03:44 [Zakim]
AxelPolleres should no longer be muted
14:03:45 [AlexPassant]
LeeF: 60 minutes call (instead of 90 minutes initially planned)
14:03:46 [LeeF]
topic: admin
14:03:48 [AlexPassant]
topic: admin stuff
14:03:51 [LeeF]
PROPOSED: Approve minutes at
14:03:56 [Zakim]
Ivan should no longer be muted
14:03:59 [ericP]
q+ to ask if we should schedule 90min calls at 13:30Z
14:04:02 [Zakim]
14:04:04 [Zakim]
Chimezie_Ogbuji should now be muted
14:04:32 [AlexPassant]
AxelPolleres: Regrets to be added to the previous minutes
14:04:42 [ericP]
14:04:42 [LeeF]
RESOLVED: Approve minutes at, noting Axel's regrets
14:05:06 [AlexPassant]
All: Congrats to Axel :-)
14:05:07 [LukeWM]
14:05:08 [ivan]
+1 to Axel
14:05:18 [pgearon]
14:05:32 [SteveH__]
SteveH__ has joined #sparql
14:05:41 [LeeF]
14:05:45 [AlexPassant]
LeeF: Update on the F2F status, please edit the wiki
14:06:10 [AlexPassant]
... Liaisons ?
14:06:10 [ivan]
14:06:14 [LeeF]
ack ivan
14:06:28 [AlexPassant]
ivan: RIF will go to CR very soon
14:06:39 [AlexPassant]
... conditional approval need to check with other groups for comments
14:06:43 [AlexPassant]
... but no comments expected
14:06:55 [LeeF]
topic: FPWD
14:06:59 [AlexPassant]
... happened yesterday
14:07:02 [AxelPolleres]
on RIF: Axel still following up, LC comments closed, going to Cand. Rec ... ah, ivan reporting already
14:07:20 [SimonS]
14:07:31 [AlexPassant]
SimonS: First draft of the update
14:07:39 [AlexPassant]
... issues to put it in cvs
14:07:58 [bglimm]
q+ to ask about entailment regimes and updates (deletes)
14:08:02 [SimonS]
14:08:06 [bglimm]
Zakim, unmute me
14:08:07 [Zakim]
bglimm should no longer be muted
14:08:21 [AlexPassant]
... slightly outdated version, current status: started from the member submission + wiki content
14:08:33 [AlexPassant]
... discussions on the ML that not yet reflected on the doc (besides wiki content)
14:08:36 [AlexPassant]
... then clean up
14:09:04 [AlexPassant]
LeeF: good idea would be to mention where are the current issues
14:09:20 [AlexPassant]
... referencing wiki page with open issues
14:09:26 [AlexPassant]
SimonS: Adding an issue section
14:09:31 [AlexPassant]
... for issues unrelated to the features
14:09:37 [AlexPassant]
... and mention other issues inline
14:09:39 [Zakim]
+ +1.937.775.aaee
14:09:44 [kasei]
ummmm... i seem to be listed as an editor on that update-1.0 page(?)
14:10:30 [LeeF]
update-1.0 is out of date
14:10:37 [LeeF]
the other URL has the most up to date one, kasei
14:10:40 [LeeF]
14:10:44 [pgearon]
I wasn't available to help Simon on this iteration. Hoping to pick up the slack with the next one.
14:10:46 [kasei]
ok, just as long as that's been fixed :)
14:11:11 [AndyS]
-> is combined query and update.
14:11:51 [AlexPassant]
SimonS: another internal iteration
14:12:02 [AlexPassant]
LeeF: e-mail to be sent later
14:12:09 [AlexPassant]
... good practice for each document
14:12:42 [AlexPassant]
... discuss in the group, then publish
14:12:59 [AlexPassant]
... anybody not involved in X should review X, etc.
14:13:03 [Prateek]
Prateek has joined #sparql
14:14:08 [AlexPassant]
LeeF: anything needed from the group to query editors ?
14:14:24 [AlexPassant]
SteveH__: stuff around select syntax
14:14:43 [AlexPassant]
... can be reolved after FPWD
14:14:47 [AndyS]
14:15:19 [LeeF]
ack bglimm
14:15:19 [Zakim]
bglimm, you wanted to ask about entailment regimes and updates (deletes)
14:15:41 [AlexPassant]
bglimm: Enteilement regime : will it be left open on the update document ?
14:15:50 [chimezie]
zakim, please unmute me
14:15:50 [Zakim]
Chimezie_Ogbuji should no longer be muted
14:16:02 [chimezie]
entailment regimes only appply to 'active' graphs, so I'm not sure if it is impacted
14:17:09 [AxelPolleres]
+1 to defer update semantics for higher entailments to entailment regime TF
14:17:15 [LeeF]
ISSUE: How can other entailment regimes plug in their semantics to SPARQL/Update?
14:17:15 [trackbot]
Created ISSUE-40 - How can other entailment regimes plug in their semantics to SPARQL/Update? ; please complete additional details at .
14:17:46 [bglimm]
Zakim, mute me
14:17:46 [Zakim]
bglimm should now be muted
14:17:47 [LeeF]
14:18:04 [LeeF]
topic: Service Description
14:18:04 [AlexPassant]
LeeF: anything else about the documents themselves ?
14:18:22 [AlexPassant]
LeeF: would like to reach a decision about the discovery mechanism
14:19:03 [AlexPassant]
... polls - speak if you are concerned by any of the proposals
14:19:08 [kasei]
I'd like to see options 8 and 7' (the RDFa one) be discussed in addition to the ones we've already had strawpolls on.
14:19:33 [kasei]
Zakim, unmute me
14:19:33 [Zakim]
kasei should no longer be muted
14:19:48 [AlexPassant]
... kasei to resume current status
14:20:01 [AlexPassant]
kasei: did my best to summariwe the pros / cons of current proposals
14:20:22 [AlexPassant]
... optin 1: link header in http and/or html
14:20:28 [AlexPassant]
... will link to a service description document
14:20:56 [AlexPassant]
... option 2 : HTTP OPTION
14:20:59 [AlexPassant]
... * vote against
14:21:03 [AlexPassant]
... 8 vote against
14:21:10 [SteveH__]
my objection to OPTION was cache related
14:21:30 [AlexPassant]
... difficult to query
14:21:41 [AlexPassant]
... option 7: content negociation on the endpoint URI
14:21:45 [AlexPassant]
... 4/1/4
14:21:58 [AlexPassant]
... biggest point against would be the reactions of HTTP purists
14:22:26 [AlexPassant]
... as not identical resources will be described (e.g. web form)
14:22:30 [AlexPassant]
... to be discussed:
14:22:45 [AlexPassant]
... option 7' RDFa version of the Service Description
14:22:56 [AlexPassant]
... encoded in the HTML page / form
14:23:12 [LeeF]
q+ to ask if 7' has the opposite negative of option 7
14:23:19 [AlexPassant]
q+ for RDFa and (non-X)HTML
14:23:25 [AlexPassant]
... option 8
14:23:31 [AlexPassant]
... implementation issues mentioned by Steve
14:23:50 [AlexPassant]
LeeF: Straw poll needed
14:24:02 [Zakim]
14:24:30 [AlexPassant]
... option 7' opposite negative of the conneg option
14:24:42 [AlexPassant]
... return any sort of HTML just to encode the RDFa
14:24:43 [SteveH__]
and the drafback of the conneg option
14:24:46 [LeeF]
ack me
14:24:46 [Zakim]
LeeF, you wanted to ask if 7' has the opposite negative of option 7
14:24:46 [pgearon]
This was my concern
14:24:56 [LeeF]
14:25:00 [LeeF]
ack AlexPassant
14:25:00 [Zakim]
AlexPassant, you wanted to discuss RDFa and (non-X)HTML
14:25:01 [ivan]
I agree with Lee, 7' is just a more detailed version of 7
14:25:02 [AxelPolleres]
q+ on Option 7' variations.
14:25:49 [AlexPassant]
AlexPassant: issue of RDFa in non-X HTML
14:25:57 [AlexPassant]
... more political than technical decision
14:26:01 [AxelPolleres]
ack me
14:26:01 [Zakim]
AxelPolleres, you wanted to comment on Option 7' variations.
14:26:08 [AlexPassant]
.. will imply that endpoints / forms should be XHTML
14:26:12 [SteveH__]
q+ to talk about reverse proxies
14:26:18 [LeeF]
ack AxelPolleres
14:26:26 [AndyS]
q+ on RDFa and who authors forms
14:26:29 [ivan]
14:26:37 [kasei]
I suppose GRDDL is also an option.
14:26:45 [ivan]
14:26:55 [AlexPassant]
AxelPolleres: content negociation could return pure RDF or HTML+RDFa
14:27:08 [LeeF]
14:27:33 [LeeF]
ack AndyS
14:27:33 [Zakim]
AndyS, you wanted to comment on RDFa and who authors forms
14:27:53 [AlexPassant]
AndyS: people may not have complete control on the URL of the endpoint
14:28:13 [AxelPolleres]
what I meant is, independent of whether content negotiation is supported, we allow both RDFa+HTML or pure RDF/XML as as service descriptions.
14:28:19 [kasei]
q+ to ask AndyS a followup question
14:28:27 [LeeF]
ack kasei
14:28:27 [Zakim]
kasei, you wanted to ask AndyS a followup question
14:28:44 [AlexPassant]
kasei: will it affect the HTTP headers of the page
14:28:50 [AlexPassant]
AndyS: would have less effet
14:28:57 [AlexPassant]
... data is more under control of the service provider
14:29:03 [LeeF]
AxelPolleres, I don't understand what you mean by independent of content negotiation. How would this look without content negotiation?
14:29:05 [pgearon]
+q to ask about RDFa processors in JS
14:29:10 [ivan]
14:29:18 [AlexPassant]
... proxy ownership issue
14:29:24 [chimezie]
in ruling these out are we considering these mutually exclusive options?
14:29:28 [AlexPassant]
14:29:42 [LeeF]
ack pgearon
14:29:42 [Zakim]
pgearon, you wanted to ask about RDFa processors in JS
14:30:10 [LeeF]
ack ivan
14:30:16 [AlexPassant]
pgearon: any RDFa library in javascript ?
14:30:19 [AlexPassant]
LeeF: yes
14:30:28 [AlexPassant]
ivan: would like to put the RDFa issue aside for a moment
14:31:03 [AxelPolleres]
+1 to ivan, allowing RDFa is orthogonal to conneg
14:31:21 [kasei]
ivan: isn't this exactly why encoding in RDFa would be a good thing? just one representation of the resource, but with RDF in it.
14:32:23 [AlexPassant]
LeeF: acknowledge the option of people returning form makes it a little easier
14:32:36 [AlexPassant]
... purist would argue that there is no for in the conneg
14:32:51 [LeeF]
14:33:08 [AlexPassant]
... separate proposal on the content negociation ?
14:33:18 [chimezie]
i think 'self-describing' service resource is more conservative than pure content negotiation
14:33:26 [kasei]
14:33:30 [AlexPassant]
why cannot we describe the form in the conneg. RDF ?
14:33:40 [SteveH__]
yes, strawpoll
14:33:51 [LeeF]
ack kasei
14:34:04 [ivan]
14:34:04 [AlexPassant]
kasei: possible proposal, RDFa without conneg
14:34:15 [AlexPassant]
... complaints of the purists as it's not the same resource
14:35:02 [AlexPassant]
LeeF: do not see RDFa as required
14:35:12 [AlexPassant]
... strawpoll on connect with RDFa as an option
14:35:14 [LeeF]
ack ivan
14:35:47 [AlexPassant]
ivan: issue is not RDF/RDFa but what is the URI of the resource
14:35:56 [chimezie]
though i don't think the alternative should require RDFa but be one where we *dont* do con neg but encourage RDFa
14:36:07 [LeeF]
zakim, who's on the phone?
14:36:07 [Zakim]
On the phone I see AndyS, LeeF, kasei, SimonS, AlexPassant, Garlik, bglimm (muted), Ivan, AxelPolleres, EricP, pgearon, Chimezie_Ogbuji, +1.937.775.aaee, [IPcaller]
14:36:10 [Zakim]
Garlik has LukeWM, SteveH
14:36:19 [LeeF]
zakim, who's speaking?
14:36:29 [Zakim]
LeeF, listening for 10 seconds I heard sound from the following: AndyS (9%), LeeF (14%), Ivan (59%)
14:37:22 [AlexPassant]
... the resource = the service description
14:37:29 [AxelPolleres]
Would that be the Option which is now being discussed? "RDFa+HTML or RDF/XML at the service endpoint URL are both valid ways to serve the service description"?
14:38:03 [chimezie]
I think Ivan is saying that unless the RDFa uses the endpoint URI explicitely, the issue of what we are identifying doesn't come up
14:38:16 [LeeF]
zakim, aaee is Prateek
14:38:17 [Zakim]
+Prateek; got it
14:38:19 [LeeF]
zakim, IPCaller is Orri
14:38:19 [Zakim]
+Orri; got it
14:38:31 [LeeF]
14:38:37 [SteveH__]
can I talk before the poll
14:38:38 [SteveH__]
14:38:59 [LeeF]
ack SteveH__
14:38:59 [Zakim]
SteveH__, you wanted to talk about reverse proxies
14:39:00 [AlexPassant]
LeeF: strawpoll on option: SD served via conneg w/ pure RDF + RDFa in XHTML
14:39:16 [AlexPassant]
SteveH__: reverse proxies become very common
14:39:22 [AlexPassant]
... esp w/ webservices, etc.
14:39:39 [AlexPassant]
... problem is that the SPARQL endpoint cannot get the URL it is called from
14:39:46 [ivan]
zakim, drop me
14:39:46 [Zakim]
Ivan is being disconnected
14:39:48 [Zakim]
14:39:53 [AlexPassant]
... unambiguously pointing back to the client
14:39:55 [ivan]
zakim, dial ivan-voip
14:39:55 [Zakim]
ok, ivan; the call is being made
14:39:57 [Zakim]
14:40:45 [AxelPolleres]
q+ to ask steveh whether this isn't an orthogonal issue? remember we discussed that the discription itself can use a bnode for the endpoint.
14:40:54 [AlexPassant]
ericP: any way to talk about the URI even with the proxy
14:41:03 [AxelPolleres]
ack me
14:41:03 [Zakim]
AxelPolleres, you wanted to ask steveh whether this isn't an orthogonal issue? remember we discussed that the discription itself can use a bnode for the endpoint.
14:41:05 [AndyS]
Return a bnode, not <foo> (semi :-)
14:41:17 [AlexPassant]
AxelPolleres: orthogonal issue ?
14:41:27 [SteveH__]
I can have a proxy URI which is <> where the endpoint is <>
14:41:35 [AlexPassant]
... if we get the URI we get the description ?
14:41:46 [AlexPassant]
... discussions on the ML if the description itself whould be on a blank node
14:42:22 [chimezie]
I can see the general confusion with identifying an endpoint behind a rev proxy, but i think empty URI ref handles it (as well a s con neg) but as Axel said , it is orthogonal, because the descriptions don't have to reference the endpoint
14:43:31 [AlexPassant]
SteveH__: nothing suggest you may have a / at the end
14:43:47 [Prateek]
Prateek has joined #sparql
14:43:50 [AxelPolleres]
chime, the description *can* have a reference to the endpoint, but then rather by an attribute denoting the "official" endpoint URL, I'd say e.g. [a endpoint; endpointURL <http://endpointURL> ] .
14:43:50 [kasei]
how is <> different in this respect from <?serviceDescription> ?
14:43:58 [AlexPassant]
LeeF: SD doesn't need to refer to the service with that URI ?
14:44:07 [AlexPassant]
SteveH__: depends on the exact defintion of the SD
14:44:14 [AlexPassant]
... able to talk about the endpoint
14:44:28 [AlexPassant]
... e.g. fetch the service description: needs to know what we're talking about
14:44:56 [LeeF]
14:45:11 [SteveH__]
base <> + <?foo> gives <>
14:45:30 [SteveH__]
kasei, ^^
14:45:31 [LeeF]
option 7': conneg + option to return RDFa for service descriptin in hTML
14:45:39 [SteveH__]
14:45:42 [kasei]
14:45:50 [bglimm]
14:45:51 [LeeF]
14:45:51 [ericP]
14:45:52 [LukeWM]
14:45:54 [AlexPassant]
14:45:55 [chimezie]
14:45:56 [pgearon]
14:45:56 [ivan]
14:45:59 [SimonS]
14:46:02 [AxelPolleres]
14:46:04 [AndyS]
14:46:31 [Prateek]
14:47:21 [chimezie]
RDFa, doesn't require use of accept headers
14:47:53 [kasei]
14:47:58 [SteveH__]
AlexPassant, you need to implement proper conneg to implement the sparql results spec + json anyway, and many people do that
14:48:36 [AlexPassant]
SteveH__: I mean *real* proper conneg (see previous thread on the LOD mailing lists, really a pain to get it clean)
14:49:07 [LeeF]
ack kasei
14:49:41 [SteveH__]
+1 to kasei
14:49:41 [LukeWM]
14:49:57 [AlexPassant]
kasei: query form in the HTML is a different issue
14:50:09 [AlexPassant]
ericP: pb is that we can have 2 descriptions of the same resource
14:50:24 [AlexPassant]
kasei: pushing for the HTML form or for the service description ?
14:50:24 [LukeWM]
ack me
14:50:27 [LeeF]
ack LukeWM
14:51:25 [AlexPassant]
LeeF: option 8 - new protocol verb, e.g. endpoing?servicedesc
14:51:26 [LukeWM]
AlexPassant, I think that kasei had already said it.
14:51:41 [AlexPassant]
14:51:42 [LukeWM]
LukeWM: can we just mandate that there is no query form.
14:51:53 [AlexPassant]
... issue: nothing to refer to the URI if using reverse proxy
14:52:29 [SteveH__]
14:52:51 [LeeF]
ack SteveH__
14:54:09 [LeeF]
. /sparql?serviceDescription
14:54:18 [SteveH__]
14:54:19 [AlexPassant]
14:54:21 [pgearon]
14:54:21 [ericP]
14:54:23 [LukeWM]
14:54:24 [ivan]
14:54:25 [AndyS]
14:54:27 [AxelPolleres]
14:54:28 [LeeF]
14:54:28 [kasei]
14:54:29 [bglimm]
14:54:30 [chimezie]
14:54:32 [SimonS]
14:55:33 [Prateek]
14:55:42 [ivan]
my feeling is that if I want to use the query endpoint to query into the service description it seems to be a bit too convoluted to be worth it...
14:55:54 [AlexPassant]
LeeF: most support for conneg / RDFa: i.e. return SD at the URL of the endpoint
14:56:06 [kasei]
+1 to LeeF's characterization of option 7
14:56:11 [SteveH__]
14:56:17 [SteveH__]
we dont need to mention conneg
14:56:33 [AndyS]
RDFa is a mention of best practice? Did I hear right?
14:57:03 [kasei]
and/or GRDDL or just serving plain RDF...
14:57:04 [AlexPassant]
... debate on recipes , which ones do we want to include
14:57:05 [SteveH__]
...arguably an HTML form is the way you describe the endpoint access method in HTML
14:57:10 [ivan]
I do think the document should mandate RDFa
14:57:17 [AlexPassant]
... editorial latitude
14:57:22 [AndyS]
+1 to plain RDF as 1st class choice.
14:57:29 [AlexPassant]
+1 for Lees proposal and mention of RDFa in the doc
14:57:56 [chimezie]
14:58:08 [AlexPassant]
topic: AOB
14:58:16 [AxelPolleres]
14:58:17 [AlexPassant]
SimonS: issue with update + entailment
14:58:20 [AlexPassant]
... issue 28
14:58:53 [SteveH__]
ericP, sure
14:59:13 [AlexPassant]
... e-mnail to be sent in the week
14:59:15 [AxelPolleres]
Can you paste the URI?
14:59:19 [ivan]
yep, issues 28 and 40 are the same...
14:59:50 [Zakim]
14:59:57 [AlexPassant]
LeeF: please update the F2F and SELECT query syntax comments are welcome on the mailing list
14:59:59 [ivan]
better more than none:-)
15:00:01 [Zakim]
15:00:02 [ivan]
zakim, drop me
15:00:02 [Zakim]
Ivan is being disconnected
15:00:04 [Zakim]
15:00:04 [Zakim]
15:00:05 [LukeWM]
15:00:10 [AlexPassant]
15:00:13 [bglimm]
15:00:14 [Zakim]
15:00:17 [Zakim]
15:00:19 [Zakim]
15:00:20 [SimonS]
Paul, could you stay for a second?
15:00:32 [LeeF]
AlexPassant, thanks for scribing
15:00:35 [LukeWM]
ericP, do you mind if I listen in to this discussion?
15:00:40 [ericP]
not at all
15:00:41 [Zakim]
15:00:45 [ericP]
15:00:45 [LukeWM]
15:04:43 [Zakim]
15:10:21 [kasei]
(still listening in) it's not the case that the endpoint necessarily dereferences a FROM
15:11:07 [LeeF]
AlexPassant, can you take a shot at the minutes as per ?
15:15:47 [SimonS]
SimonS has left #sparql
15:17:42 [Zakim]
15:18:18 [Zakim]
15:20:05 [LukeWM]
I'm off, bye
15:29:29 [kasei]
I'm off as well. ericP or SteveH__, any chance you could post some thoughts if you resolve any issues? :)
15:29:48 [Zakim]
15:41:33 [SteveH__]
SELECT * WHERE { GRAPH ?g { ?a a :Foo } }
15:41:40 [SteveH__]
SELECT * WHERE { GRAPH ?g { ?g a :Foo } }
15:42:55 [SteveH__]
SELECT * WHERE { GRAPH ?g { ?g a :SPARQLEndpoint } }
15:45:00 [SteveH__]
SELECT * WHERE { GRAPH ?g { ?g a :SPARQLEndpoint . ?s ?p ?o } }
15:49:44 [SteveH__]
FROM <> SELECT * WHERE { ?x :cpuLoad ?load }
15:51:17 [ericP]
FROM <">> SELECT * WHERE { GRAPH <> { ?x :cpuLoad ?load } }
15:51:21 [ericP]
SELECT * WHERE { GRAPH <> { ?x :cpuLoad ?load } }
15:52:16 [ericP]
SELECT * WHERE { ?x :cpuLoad ?load }
15:52:31 [ericP]
16:02:24 [ericP]
<form><input name="sparql"/></form> === <> a :SPARQLEndpoint .
16:10:11 [SteveH__]
16:10:43 [SteveH__]
16:11:08 [Zakim]
16:11:10 [Zakim]
16:11:10 [Zakim]
SW_(SPARQL)10:00AM has ended
16:11:11 [Zakim]
Attendees were AndyS, +1.617.960.aaaa, LeeF, kasei, +049261287aabb, SimonS, AlexPassant, LukeWM, SteveH, bglimm, Ivan, AxelPolleres, EricP, +1.540.412.aadd, pgearon,
16:11:13 [Zakim]
... Chimezie_Ogbuji, +1.937.775.aaee, Prateek, Orri
16:36:15 [ivan]
ivan has left #sparql
16:44:18 [pgearon]
pgearon has left #sparql
16:46:55 [AxelPolleres]
AxelPolleres has left #sparql
17:02:46 [Zakim]
Zakim has left #sparql
17:11:23 [LukeWM]
LukeWM has joined #sparql
19:11:25 [AxelPolleres]
AxelPolleres has joined #sparql
21:19:57 [AxelPolleres]
AxelPolleres has joined #sparql
21:33:07 [LeeF]
LeeF has joined #sparql