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 http://www.w3.org/2009/09/15-sparql-irc
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]: +??P2
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]: +kasei
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]: +??P22
13:58:56 [Zakim]: +??P24
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]: yep
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]: +Ivan
14:00:39 [bglimm]: Zakim, mute me
14:00:42 [Zakim]: bglimm should now be muted
14:01:12 [Zakim]: +AxelPolleres
14:01:24 [Zakim]: +EricP
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 http://www.w3.org/2009/sparql/meeting/2009-09-08
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]: +Chimezie_Ogbuji
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]: q-
14:04:42 [LeeF]: RESOLVED: Approve minutes at http://www.w3.org/2009/sparql/meeting/2009-09-08, noting Axel's regrets
14:05:06 [AlexPassant]: All: Congrats to Axel :-)
14:05:07 [LukeWM]: axelsfamily++
14:05:08 [ivan]: +1 to Axel
14:05:18 [pgearon]: congrats
14:05:32 [SteveH__]: SteveH__ has joined #sparql
14:05:41 [LeeF]: http://www.w3.org/2009/sparql/wiki/F2F2
14:05:45 [AlexPassant]: LeeF: Update on the F2F status, please edit the wiki
14:06:10 [AlexPassant]: ... Liaisons ?
14:06:10 [ivan]: q+
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]: http://userpages.uni-koblenz.de/~sschenk/sparql-update-1.0/Overview.xml
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]: http://www.w3.org/2009/sparql/docs/update-1.0/
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]: afaict
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]: -> http://jena.hpl.hp.com/~afs/sparql-1.1.html 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]: +1
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 http://www.w3.org/2009/sparql/track/issues/40/edit .
14:17:46 [bglimm]: Zakim, mute me
14:17:46 [Zakim]: bglimm should now be muted
14:17:47 [LeeF]: q?
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]: +[IPcaller]
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]: q?
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]: q+
14:26:37 [kasei]: I suppose GRDDL is also an option.
14:26:45 [ivan]: q-
14:26:55 [AlexPassant]: AxelPolleres: content negociation could return pure RDF or HTML+RDFa
14:27:08 [LeeF]: q?
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]: q+
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]: s/.../kasei:
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]: q?
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]: q+
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]: q+
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]: q?
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]: -Ivan
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]: +Ivan
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 <http://foo.com/bar> where the endpoint is <http://bar.com/baz>
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]: q?
14:45:11 [SteveH__]: base <http://foo.com/bar> + <?foo> gives <http://foo.com/?foo>
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__]: +1
14:45:42 [kasei]: +1
14:45:50 [bglimm]: 0
14:45:51 [LeeF]: 0
14:45:51 [ericP]: -1
14:45:52 [LukeWM]: +1
14:45:54 [AlexPassant]: +1
14:45:55 [chimezie]: +1
14:45:56 [pgearon]: -1
14:45:56 [ivan]: 0
14:45:59 [SimonS]: +1
14:46:02 [AxelPolleres]: +1
14:46:04 [AndyS]: 0
14:46:31 [Prateek]: 0
14:47:21 [chimezie]: RDFa, doesn't require use of accept headers
14:47:53 [kasei]: q+
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]: q+
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]: s/endpoing/endpoint
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__]: q+
14:52:51 [LeeF]: ack SteveH__
14:54:09 [LeeF]: . /sparql?serviceDescription
14:54:18 [SteveH__]: -0.5
14:54:19 [AlexPassant]: +1
14:54:21 [pgearon]: +1
14:54:21 [ericP]: 0
14:54:23 [LukeWM]: 0
14:54:24 [ivan]: -1
14:54:25 [AndyS]: +1
14:54:27 [AxelPolleres]: 0
14:54:28 [LeeF]: '0
14:54:28 [kasei]: 0
14:54:29 [bglimm]: 0
14:54:30 [chimezie]: 0
14:54:32 [SimonS]: 0
14:55:33 [Prateek]: 0
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__]: +1
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]: http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/doc/selfDescribingDocuments.html#RDFSection
14:58:08 [AlexPassant]: topic: AOB
14:58:16 [AxelPolleres]: ISSUE-28
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]: -Chimezie_Ogbuji
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]: -Orri
15:00:02 [ivan]: zakim, drop me
15:00:02 [Zakim]: Ivan is being disconnected
15:00:04 [Zakim]: -Ivan
15:00:04 [Zakim]: -LeeF
15:00:05 [LukeWM]: bye
15:00:10 [AlexPassant]: bye
15:00:13 [bglimm]: bye
15:00:14 [Zakim]: -Prateek
15:00:17 [Zakim]: -bglimm
15:00:19 [Zakim]: -AxelPolleres
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]: -AlexPassant
15:00:45 [ericP]: please
15:00:45 [LukeWM]: cool
15:04:43 [Zakim]: -SimonS
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 http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-dawg/2009AprJun/0406.html ?
15:15:47 [SimonS]: SimonS has left #sparql
15:17:42 [Zakim]: -AndyS
15:18:18 [Zakim]: -pgearon
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]: -kasei
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 <http://foo.com/sparql> SELECT * WHERE { ?x :cpuLoad ?load }
15:51:17 [ericP]: FROM <http://foo.com/sparql">http://foo.com/sparql> SELECT * WHERE { GRAPH <http://foo.com/sparql> { ?x :cpuLoad ?load } }
15:51:21 [ericP]: SELECT * WHERE { GRAPH <http://foo.com/sparql> { ?x :cpuLoad ?load } }
15:52:16 [ericP]: SELECT * WHERE { ?x :cpuLoad ?load }
15:52:31 [ericP]: http://foo.com/sparql
16:02:24 [ericP]: <form><input name="sparql"/></form> === <> a :SPARQLEndpoint .
16:10:11 [SteveH__]: 4store.org
16:10:43 [SteveH__]: http://github.com/garlik/4store
16:11:08 [Zakim]: -EricP
16:11:10 [Zakim]: -Garlik
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