IRC log of sparql on 2009-09-22

Timestamps are in UTC.

13:54:48 [RRSAgent]
RRSAgent has joined #sparql
13:54:48 [RRSAgent]
logging to
13:54:57 [AxelPolleres]
Zakim, this will be sparql
13:54:57 [Zakim]
ok, AxelPolleres; I see SW_(SPARQL)10:00AM scheduled to start in 6 minutes
13:55:15 [LeeF]
AxelPolleres, you don't need to do rrsagent & zakim by hand in the future - you can just use "trackbot, start meeting"
13:56:56 [OlivierCorby]
Hello, I am Olivier Corby from INRIA Sophia Antipolis, new member of the WG
13:57:02 [AxelPolleres]
ah right, but I don't need to say it again now, do I?
13:57:21 [AxelPolleres]
Welcome Olivier!
13:57:50 [LeeF]
hi OlivierCorby, good to have you
13:58:05 [LeeF]
AxelPolleres, right, no need to repeat it now, though trackbot does do other things like date and stuff
13:58:08 [Zakim]
SW_(SPARQL)10:00AM has now started
13:58:15 [Zakim]
13:58:25 [SimonS]
SimonS has joined #sparql
13:58:43 [ivan]
zakim, dial ivan-voip
13:58:43 [Zakim]
ok, ivan; the call is being made
13:58:44 [Zakim]
13:58:50 [Zakim]
+ +49.238.aaaa
13:58:56 [SteveH_]
SteveH_ has joined #sparql
13:59:03 [Zakim]
13:59:11 [LeeF]
zakim, Lee_Feigenbaum is me
13:59:11 [Zakim]
+LeeF; got it
13:59:15 [LeeF]
zakim, mute me please
13:59:15 [Zakim]
LeeF should now be muted
13:59:29 [bglimm]
bglimm has joined #SPARQL
13:59:34 [OlivierCorby]
Zakim, +33.492.387.871 is me
13:59:34 [Zakim]
sorry, OlivierCorby, I do not recognize a party named '+33.492.387.871'
13:59:56 [Zakim]
14:00:05 [LeeF]
zakim, who's on the phone?
14:00:14 [Zakim]
14:00:15 [LeeF]
Chair: AxelPolleres
14:00:18 [Zakim]
On the phone I see AxelPolleres, Ivan, +49.238.aaaa, LeeF (muted), kasei, ??P21
14:00:21 [SteveH_]
Zakim, ??P21 is [Garlik]
14:00:22 [kasei]
Zakim, mute me
14:00:26 [LeeF]
Meeting: 22 Sep 2009
14:00:33 [SteveH]
Zakim, [Garlik] has SteveH, LukeWM
14:00:34 [Zakim]
14:00:36 [Zakim]
+[Garlik]; got it
14:00:38 [Zakim]
kasei should now be muted
14:00:41 [bglimm]
Zakim, mute me
14:00:44 [AxelPolleres]
zakim, who is on the phone
14:00:50 [Zakim]
+SteveH, LukeWM; got it
14:00:52 [Zakim]
bglimm should now be muted
14:00:53 [AxelPolleres]
member:zakim, who is on the phone?
14:00:54 [Zakim]
14:00:56 [Zakim]
I don't understand 'who is on the phone', AxelPolleres
14:01:07 [ivan]
zakim, who is there?
14:01:10 [Zakim]
I don't understand your question, ivan.
14:01:13 [ericP]
Zakim, please disconnect ericP
14:01:13 [Zakim]
sorry, ericP, I do not see a party named 'ericP'
14:01:16 [ericP]
Zakim, please disconnect eric
14:01:18 [Zakim]
sorry, ericP, I do not see a party named 'eric'
14:01:29 [AxelPolleres]
zakim, who is on the phone?
14:01:29 [Zakim]
On the phone I see AxelPolleres, Ivan, +49.238.aaaa, LeeF (muted), kasei (muted), [Garlik], bglimm (muted), SimonS
14:01:31 [Zakim]
[Garlik] has SteveH, LukeWM
14:01:34 [Zakim]
14:01:52 [SteveH]
Zakim is running with a lot of lag
14:02:22 [kasei]
it's the same number as Olivier, but without the country code.
14:02:25 [kasei]
I think Zakim is confused
14:02:52 [LukeWM]
the agenda says duration is 90 minutes, is this true?
14:02:56 [bglimm]
Welcome Olivier
14:03:00 [LeeF]
wouldn't be the first time
14:03:05 [LeeF]
(that Zakim is confused)
14:03:05 [AxelPolleres]
Zakim, aaaa is OlivierCorby
14:03:05 [Zakim]
+OlivierCorby; got it
14:03:09 [SimonKJ]
SimonKJ has joined #sparql
14:03:19 [LukeWM]
AxelPolleres: welcome Oliver Corby to the group.
14:03:22 [LeeF]
Scribenick: LukeWM
14:03:29 [LukeWM]
thanks LeeF
14:03:31 [LeeF]
14:03:39 [LeeF]
14:03:42 [LeeF]
14:03:53 [LukeWM]
AxelPolleres: lets introduce Oliver Corby
14:04:01 [ericP]
14:04:01 [Zakim]
14:04:06 [LukeWM]
OliverCorby: gives introduction
14:04:27 [Zakim]
14:04:30 [AlexPassant]
Zakim, ??P39 is me
14:04:30 [Zakim]
+AlexPassant; got it
14:05:06 [LukeWM]
AxelPolleres: remember to rejoin the group
14:05:28 [LukeWM]
AxelPolleres: or ask your AC rep to do it. Will check this later.
14:05:47 [LukeWM]
ericP: email problems due to recharting & not complicated enough tooling.
14:05:54 [AxelPolleres]
14:05:58 [LeeF]
q+ to ask once more for people to fill out
14:06:06 [LeeF]
ack me
14:06:08 [Zakim]
LeeF, you wanted to ask once more for people to fill out
14:06:46 [LeeF]
zakim, mut eme
14:06:46 [Zakim]
I don't understand 'mut eme', LeeF
14:06:48 [AxelPolleres]
PROPOSED to accept
14:06:49 [LeeF]
zakim, mute me
14:06:49 [Zakim]
LeeF should now be muted
14:07:01 [LukeWM]
LeeF: remember to fill in F2F2 attendance.
14:07:04 [ericP]
-> F2F wiki
14:07:11 [AxelPolleres]
RESOLVED to accept minutes
14:07:52 [LukeWM]
AxelPolleres: next scribe is bijan if he doesn't still have telephone difficulties.
14:08:10 [bglimm]
14:08:16 [LukeWM]
AxelPolleres: next scribe will be Chimezie if he is there.
14:08:28 [LukeWM]
AxelPolleres: Liasions...
14:08:37 [AxelPolleres]
topic: liaisons
14:08:38 [bglimm]
Zakim, unmute me
14:08:38 [Zakim]
bglimm should no longer be muted
14:08:54 [ericP]
q+ to mention RIF
14:08:55 [LeeF]
congrats, OWL and OWLers!
14:08:58 [LukeWM]
bglimm: owl went to proposed recommendation today
14:09:08 [bglimm]
Zakim, mute me
14:09:08 [Zakim]
bglimm should now be muted
14:09:29 [chimezie]
chimezie has joined #sparql
14:09:34 [LukeWM]
ericP: RIF is soliciting review from Xquery because of added functions and operators
14:10:05 [Zakim]
14:10:19 [LukeWM]
ericP: we might end up needing to work with RIF
14:10:35 [LukeWM]
ericP: because of collisions between our functions and operators. Perhaps a common document.
14:10:39 [AxelPolleres]
chime, can you scribe next time?
14:10:50 [chimezie]
14:11:00 [LukeWM]
AxelPolleres: Actions...
14:11:01 [ericP]
in particular, RIF F&O deal with the same atoms that we have, XSD types + URIs
14:11:05 [AxelPolleres]
14:11:10 [ericP]
(well, IRIs in our specs)
14:11:17 [LukeWM]
topic: actions
14:11:37 [LukeWM]
AxelPolleres: action for ericP to draft project expressions.
14:11:51 [LukeWM]
ericP: that's done, but perhaps someone wants something more, otherwise, lets remove it.
14:12:07 [LukeWM]
AxelPolleres: can we just close it?
14:12:18 [LukeWM]
ericP: yes
14:12:35 [LukeWM]
AxelPolleres: investigating issue 33 & creating trac links for update issues
14:12:46 [LukeWM]
AxelPolleres: for Lee, is that done?
14:12:47 [AxelPolleres]
14:12:54 [Zakim]
14:13:12 [ericP]
Zakim, Dan_Burnett is really Orri
14:13:12 [Zakim]
+Orri; got it
14:13:56 [LukeWM]
AxelPolleres: chime, update on Aggregates issue.
14:14:18 [LukeWM]
chimezie: there was something about groups, but I don't think this is part of the action.
14:14:38 [LukeWM]
chimezie: leave the action open and I'll investigate.
14:14:52 [LukeWM]
AxelPolleres: leaves an action for himself open.
14:14:56 [LeeF]
ack me
14:15:08 [LukeWM]
AxelPolleres: synchronising errata with Andy?
14:15:16 [LukeWM]
LeeF: can't close that yet.
14:15:23 [LeeF]
zakim, mute me
14:15:23 [Zakim]
LeeF should now be muted
14:15:29 [LukeWM]
LeeF: I'll go through and close the ones that need to be.
14:16:00 [LukeWM]
AxelPolleres: look into xml spec for SPARQL query with Andy - action on ericP.
14:16:21 [LukeWM]
ericP: ported SPARQL 1.1 to xml spec & update document to xml spec.
14:16:33 [LukeWM]
ericP: I don't know if Andy is using it.
14:16:42 [LeeF]
q+ to give mailing list heads up
14:16:54 [SimonS]
q+ re xmlspec
14:16:55 [LukeWM]
ericP: there's no point in leaving this action open.
14:17:21 [Zakim]
14:17:24 [LukeWM]
SimonS: a comment on XML spec.
14:17:36 [LukeWM]
SimonS: can we have our own copy.
14:17:38 [Prateek]
Prateek has joined #sparql
14:18:15 [LukeWM]
ericP: we're free to copy it, but we ought to use an existing one to ensure minimum differences.
14:18:41 [LukeWM]
SimonS: we have marked it up with a special class.
14:18:54 [LukeWM]
ericP: we can just tweak the XSLT to make it all visible.
14:19:01 [AxelPolleres]
14:19:08 [LeeF]
ack ericP
14:19:08 [Zakim]
ericP, you wanted to mention RIF
14:19:11 [LeeF]
ack me
14:19:12 [Zakim]
LeeF, you wanted to give mailing list heads up
14:19:25 [SimonS]
14:19:55 [LukeWM]
LeeF: there have been some hiccups with our mailing lists, and web archives haven't caught up.
14:20:21 [LukeWM]
LeeF: we're working on it, and will keep you up to date.
14:20:47 [LukeWM]
LeeF: w3c is being marked as spam by spamcop
14:20:50 [LeeF]
zakim, mute me
14:20:50 [Zakim]
LeeF should now be muted
14:20:52 [LeeF]
ack me
14:21:02 [LukeWM]
AxelPolleres: will it be fixed?
14:21:13 [LeeF]
zakim, mute me
14:21:13 [Zakim]
LeeF should now be muted
14:21:15 [LukeWM]
ericP: it's fixed for now but might recur.
14:21:50 [ericP]
s/ericP: it's fixed for now but might recur./LeeF: it's fixed for now but might recur./
14:21:58 [AxelPolleres]
topic: FPWD progress
14:22:06 [LukeWM]
AxelPolleres: lets talk about where we are with the FPWD
14:22:29 [bglimm]
1st of September?
14:22:44 [LukeWM]
AxelPolleres: we probably won't keep to end of september, but we should be as close as possible. I suggest the following schedule...
14:22:50 [SteveH]
bglimm, end of sept.
14:22:54 [bglimm]
14:22:56 [LeeF]
Note: mailing list archives at are now up to date
14:22:58 [LeeF]
so follow along there!
14:23:10 [LukeWM]
AxelPolleres: first internal draft next week
14:23:16 [LukeWM]
AxelPolleres: choose reviewers today
14:23:23 [AxelPolleres]
14:23:35 [LukeWM]
AxelPolleres: decide to publish on October 13th
14:24:02 [LukeWM]
AxelPolleres: lets pick the reviewers when we go through the documents.
14:24:24 [LukeWM]
AxelPolleres: how are we with respect to schedule, any issues?
14:24:29 [LeeF]
ack me
14:24:35 [LukeWM]
AxelPolleres: status of Sparql Query document?
14:24:51 [AxelPolleres]
14:25:00 [LukeWM]
LeeF: can editors paste the links of the documents before discussing them.
14:25:55 [LukeWM]
SteveH: Aggregate functions, subqueries, negation, project expressions
14:26:13 [LukeWM]
SteveH: negation, project expressions 80 -90% complete.
14:26:41 [LukeWM]
SteveH: requires more work on Aggregate functions and subqueries, but probably OK for review.
14:27:09 [LukeWM]
SteveH: Aggregate functions and project expressions aren't complete enough yet.
14:27:33 [bglimm]
I would like to review it
14:27:39 [LukeWM]
AxelPolleres: there will be something to review next week?
14:27:45 [LeeF]
at least 2 :)
14:27:53 [LukeWM]
SteveH: yes
14:27:57 [LeeF]
I'd like to review all of them, actually
14:28:05 [LeeF]
14:28:15 [LeeF]
but would love 2 in addition to me ;)
14:28:25 [AxelPolleres]
Reviewers for query: birte, Lee
14:28:28 [ivan]
14:28:28 [LukeWM]
AxelPolleres: bglimm has volunteered, and LeeF for all of them.
14:29:10 [SteveH]
+1 to ivan
14:29:11 [LukeWM]
ivan: we should make it clear that we intend to merge this content with the old document.
14:29:13 [LeeF]
ivan++ sounds like it makes sense in the status of the document
14:29:28 [LukeWM]
AxelPolleres: nobody disagrees
14:29:48 [AxelPolleres]
ACTION: Steve to make a comment making it clear that we intend to merge this content with the old document.
14:29:48 [trackbot]
Created ACTION-92 - Make a comment making it clear that we intend to merge this content with the old document. [on Steve Harris - due 2009-09-29].
14:30:27 [LukeWM]
AxelPolleres: anything urgent regarding this document? Aggregates is on agenda for next time. Is anything else needed?
14:30:39 [LukeWM]
SteveH: we need to decide on the scope of the group expressions.
14:31:01 [LukeWM]
SteveH: the algebra only allows group by variables, rather than expressions.
14:31:04 [LeeF]
ISSUE: Does GROUP BY allow variables or expressions, and does it allow mutiple expressions?
14:31:04 [trackbot]
Created ISSUE-41 - Does GROUP BY allow variables or expressions, and does it allow mutiple expressions? ; please complete additional details at .
14:31:40 [LukeWM]
AxelPolleres: can you summarise it on the mailing list.
14:32:05 [SteveH]
ivan, ok, I'll look at that
14:32:07 [LukeWM]
SteveH: I'll talk to Andy first and the issue is sufficient.
14:32:18 [ivan]
14:32:22 [bglimm]
Do we try and get a third reviewer?
14:32:22 [ivan]
14:32:43 [AxelPolleres]
ACTION: Steve to talk with AndyS on ISSUE-41,
14:32:43 [trackbot]
Created ACTION-93 - talk with AndyS on ISSUE-41, [on Steve Harris - due 2009-09-29].
14:33:00 [LukeWM]
AxelPolleres: another reviewer?
14:33:07 [LeeF]
ack me
14:33:38 [LukeWM]
AxelPolleres: I'll be a reviewer, but next time I'll pick a victim.
14:33:47 [AxelPolleres]
Reviewers: Axel, Lee, Birte (in reverse order of volunteering)
14:34:09 [LukeWM]
LeeF: it's not so important now, just needs to be presentable. Near the end we will need more serious reviews.
14:34:26 [AxelPolleres]
14:34:30 [AxelPolleres]
14:34:42 [SteveH]
I see a lot of things that looks like XML errors
14:34:46 [LukeWM]
AxelPolleres: SimonS, can you summarize the update document.
14:35:01 [LukeWM]
SimonS: nearly done, good enough for review.
14:35:15 [LukeWM]
SimonS: ericP is on the XML issues, so they should be fixed soon.
14:36:00 [LukeWM]
ericP: we'll end up with a better stylesheet & dtd if you bear with me.
14:36:03 [SteveH]
q+ to ask about grammar syntax
14:36:30 [LukeWM]
ericP: I want to work out the minimal diff between a live version of the stylesheet and ours first.
14:37:04 [LukeWM]
SimonS: we proposed to have a separate grammar document with an overlapping part but didn't have much response.
14:37:23 [LukeWM]
SimonS: Andy's response wasn't pro or con, so would like other opinions.
14:37:29 [bglimm]
What does it mean to have an overlapping part?
14:37:43 [SteveH]
bglimm, the common parts of the grammar
14:37:59 [LukeWM]
SimonS: there are some issues but they don't affect going to FPWD.
14:38:27 [bglimm]
Hm, so you can identify what parts apply only to update and which parts apply also to standard SPARQL?
14:38:32 [AxelPolleres]
the person typing, pls mute!
14:38:33 [LukeWM]
SteveH: where did the html that does the grammar come from.
14:39:01 [LukeWM]
ericP: pasted grammar into Yakker??? and got that to produce the HTML.
14:39:08 [ivan]
14:39:22 [AxelPolleres]
ack SteveH
14:39:22 [Zakim]
SteveH, you wanted to ask about grammar syntax
14:39:31 [LukeWM]
SteveH: HTML in update document looks to be just vanilla HTML.
14:41:10 [LukeWM]
AxelPolleres: lets get back to this when we talk about the shared document.
14:41:36 [LukeWM]
ivan: it would be good if we are consistent in the order of the sections, and the update document is different.
14:41:51 [LukeWM]
ivan: e.g. it has the issues starting at the beginning. Perhaps we should reorder.
14:41:56 [LukeWM]
AxelPolleres: Simon, can it be done?
14:42:07 [LukeWM]
SimonS: yes, any preference?
14:42:27 [LukeWM]
ivan: we should be as close to Steve's document in structure.
14:42:48 [LukeWM]
SteveH: we had an item on the TODO list to reorder the original SPARQL document to make it easier to read.
14:43:09 [LukeWM]
ivan: my point is that update & query documents should follow the same structure.
14:43:13 [LukeWM]
SteveH: agreed.
14:43:31 [LukeWM]
ivan: can we follow the query document.
14:43:34 [AxelPolleres]
ACTION: SimonS to agree with SteveH to order sections to reflect better similar structure .
14:43:34 [trackbot]
Created ACTION-94 - Agree with SteveH to order sections to reflect better similar structure . [on Simon Schenk - due 2009-09-29].
14:45:23 [LukeWM]
AxelPolleres: there are overlaps between the grammars, so to avoid redundancy, we should have a separate grammar document with the intersection between the grammars.
14:45:27 [SteveH]
14:45:44 [ericP]
q- ivan
14:46:05 [LukeWM]
AxelPolleres: or we can just link from the query document to the update document
14:46:24 [LukeWM]
SteveH: describing update in terms of query results in a double-headed grammar.
14:46:29 [AxelPolleres]
14:46:35 [SteveH]
ack me
14:46:49 [LukeWM]
ericP, I didn't catch your point.
14:47:04 [LukeWM]
AxelPolleres: if you link, it still results in 2 grammars.
14:47:14 [LukeWM]
SteveH: in all cases you end up with 2 grammars.
14:48:04 [LukeWM]
ericP: conceptually, it's nice if they both reference their intersection. But from a tool perspective, it's easier to have one big piece.
14:48:21 [LukeWM]
SteveH: ericP's master grammar with annotations for each spec is a good idea.
14:49:05 [LukeWM]
AxelPolleres: Can we do the joint grammar document in time? What do the editor's say, is it doable?
14:49:32 [LukeWM]
SteveH: we aren't merging grammars.
14:49:48 [AxelPolleres]
non need to decide now.
14:49:52 [LukeWM]
AxelPolleres: do we need to decide yet?
14:50:06 [SteveH]
I'll review
14:50:13 [LukeWM]
SteveH: no, differences can be describe in terms of 1.0 grammar.
14:50:28 [LukeWM]
I can do it too
14:50:41 [LeeF]
Not concerned with that
14:50:53 [AxelPolleres]
reviewers:Steve, Luke, Lee
14:51:19 [LukeWM]
topic: restful update document
14:51:50 [LukeWM]
chimezie: nothing to show, just trying to collect consensus, hopefully next week there'll be something worth reviewing.
14:52:15 [AxelPolleres]
update-protocol-1.0? RESTful-update-1.0?
14:52:18 [LukeWM]
AxelPolleres: what is the short name for the document?
14:52:18 [LeeF]
chimezie, is there a URL for where the draft will go yet?
14:52:34 [SteveH]
14:52:35 [LukeWM]
chimezie: lets not use REST in the name, something like RDF Update.
14:52:39 [SteveH]
+1 to not using REST
14:52:41 [AxelPolleres]
RDF-update? http-update?
14:53:00 [AlexPassant]
+1 for not using REST but using HTTP in the title
14:53:03 [LukeWM]
AxelPolleres: any preferences, RDF-update or http-update?
14:53:14 [bglimm]
+1 to http-update
14:53:21 [ivan]
14:53:27 [LukeWM]
LeeF: we just need to distinguish it from SPARQL/update sufficiently.
14:53:31 [AxelPolleres]
+1 to http-update
14:53:42 [chimezie]
+1 http-rdf-update or http-update
14:53:47 [LukeWM]
AxelPolleres: lets have a quick straw poll.
14:53:58 [LukeWM]
+1 to rdf-http-update
14:54:04 [SteveH]
+1 http-rdf-update or http-update
14:54:09 [SimonS]
+1 http-rdf-update
14:54:12 [ivan]
'http-update' might not say that this is related to rdf or sparql
14:54:16 [AlexPassant]
+1 http-rdf-update
14:54:17 [kasei]
+1 http-rdf-update
14:54:19 [LeeF]
yeah, http-update doesn't make any sense to me :)
14:54:25 [ivan]
rdf-http-update or http-rdf-update:-)
14:54:32 [LukeWM]
AxelPolleres: volunteers for reviewing
14:54:41 [bglimm]
true, I am happy with http-rdf-update or http-sparql-update
14:54:48 [LukeWM]
SimonKJ: I can review it
14:54:53 [AxelPolleres]
reviewer: simonKJ, simonS, Lee
14:54:55 [LukeWM]
SimonS: me too
14:55:13 [LukeWM]
AxelPolleres: I'll put Lee too.
14:55:37 [AxelPolleres]
14:56:04 [LukeWM]
AxelPolleres: SimonKJ, can you report on the protocol document
14:56:42 [LukeWM]
SimonKJ: I need to send CVS keys to ericP, but haven't got going with it.
14:56:44 [ivan]
14:57:02 [LukeWM]
SimonKJ: I hope I can get something for next week if I can get CVS sorted today.
14:57:20 [LukeWM]
LeeF: We can talk and perhaps do something jointly.
14:57:30 [bglimm]
I might need CVS access as well since at the moment we edit in the WebOnt wiki
14:57:39 [LukeWM]
ivan: there is a practical reason why that document should be published at the same time.
14:58:03 [AxelPolleres]
birte ,we'll get to that, agreed.
14:58:34 [LukeWM]
ivan: if we do it now, it will be easier for companies like HP or Oracle
14:58:41 [AxelPolleres]
reviewers: axel
14:58:52 [ivan]
s/did/did not/
14:59:01 [LukeWM]
AxelPolleres: reviewers?
14:59:03 [AlexPassant]
ill do it
14:59:27 [AxelPolleres]
reviewers: Axel Alex
14:59:40 [kasei]
Zakim, unmute me
14:59:40 [Zakim]
kasei should no longer be muted
14:59:49 [LukeWM]
topic: service description
14:59:57 [AxelPolleres]
15:00:28 [ivan]
15:00:29 [LeeF]
sparql-service-description ?
15:00:31 [LukeWM]
kasei: discovery stuff is settled, but vocabulary still needs to be sorted
15:00:39 [LukeWM]
kasei, that was you speaking wasn't it?
15:01:02 [LukeWM]
AxelPolleres: short name?
15:01:11 [kasei]
LukeWM, yes
15:01:11 [LukeWM]
ivan: all short names should start the same.
15:01:12 [AxelPolleres]
All short names should start with sparql- or rdf-
15:01:16 [LukeWM]
15:01:37 [LukeWM]
AxelPolleres: will it be possible to review next week.
15:02:03 [LukeWM]
kasei: I don't have anything yet, but will try for something next week. It isn't as deep in scope as some of the others.
15:02:15 [LukeWM]
I can review it when it's done.
15:02:17 [SimonKJ]
I'll do that one as well
15:02:19 [ericP]
ivan, will you be able to cover the rest of this call? i have a conflict starting now.
15:02:45 [Zakim]
15:02:46 [AxelPolleres]
reviewers: SimonK, Axel, Lee
15:02:55 [kasei]
Zakim, mute me
15:02:59 [Zakim]
kasei should now be muted
15:03:03 [Zakim]
15:03:23 [AxelPolleres]
15:03:29 [LukeWM]
AxelPolleres: anything with respect to update for F & R ? Will there be a new version, will things be added for time allowed features.
15:03:50 [LukeWM]
LeeF: I'm keen to hear about the status of entailment. Lets talk about this later.
15:05:08 [AxelPolleres]
reviewer: chime, Lee
15:05:18 [bglimm]
Zakim, unmute me
15:05:25 [bglimm]
15:05:26 [Zakim]
bglimm should no longer be muted
15:05:51 [LukeWM]
AlexPassant, I didn't catch what you said about the F& R status, could you put it into IRC please.
15:06:11 [AlexPassant]
AlexPassant: Will update FR with more content on allowed feature by next week
15:06:24 [LukeWM]
bglimm: OWL - there's still a lot of work around what is decidable and not, but should have a decent version next week.
15:06:33 [LukeWM]
AxelPolleres: just sparql-owl?
15:07:11 [LukeWM]
bglimm: the basic difference is just what queries are allowed, so the same restrictions apply as OWL2.
15:07:36 [LukeWM]
bglimm: it isn't worth doing SPARQL RDFS because you don't gain much.
15:07:47 [LeeF]
let's try one or two out first :
15:07:48 [LeeF]
15:07:50 [LukeWM]
AxelPolleres: is there any RIF in there?
15:08:00 [LukeWM]
blglimm: no
15:08:08 [LeeF]
q+ to ask how the extension mechanism seems
15:08:11 [LeeF]
ack ivan
15:08:38 [LukeWM]
LeeF: have you done enough to work out whether the structure of the extension method is enough.
15:08:43 [LukeWM]
LeeF: ?
15:08:55 [LukeWM]
blglimm: yes, I think it will work.
15:09:01 [bglimm]
?x rdf:type rdf:XMLLiteral
15:09:20 [LukeWM]
bglimm: yes, I think it will work.
15:09:23 [chimezie]
does the fact that we don't have an allocated editor for RIF-related entailment put us at risk for that regime?
15:09:59 [LeeF]
chimezie, i think we've always been at risk for that, given that it was 3rd or 4th in line for a time-permitting feature in the first place
15:10:00 [kasei]
shouldn't that have legitimate answers if you aren't using d-entailment and you have a resource with that type?
15:10:09 [AxelPolleres]
15:10:13 [LeeF]
...but i also hope that Birte and Bijan can edit that into the /Entailment document once we get to that
15:10:16 [LukeWM]
AxelPolleres: talks with bglimm about queries which are legal but don't have a legal answer.
15:10:18 [LeeF]
ack LeeF
15:10:18 [Zakim]
LeeF, you wanted to ask how the extension mechanism seems
15:10:28 [LeeF]
with help from our RIF-heads
15:10:29 [bglimm]
according to the spec no answers
15:10:43 [chimezie]
15:10:54 [AxelPolleres]
ACTION: Axel to go over entailment doc to put in at least hooks for RIF/OWL RL entailments.
15:10:54 [trackbot]
Created ACTION-95 - Go over entailment doc to put in at least hooks for RIF/OWL RL entailments. [on Axel Polleres - due 2009-09-29].
15:11:57 [bglimm]
15:12:05 [AxelPolleres]
ACTION: Axel to contact Eric to setup CVS access for new editors.
15:12:05 [trackbot]
Created ACTION-96 - Contact Eric to setup CVS access for new editors. [on Axel Polleres - due 2009-09-29].
15:12:32 [LukeWM]
LeeF: please send parts of drafts to the mailing list when you have them.
15:12:37 [LukeWM]
AxelPolleres: any more discussion?
15:12:45 [LukeWM]
AxelPolleres: reviewers?
15:12:52 [LukeWM]
chimezie: I'll volunteer.
15:13:21 [AxelPolleres]
review: chime, lee
15:13:23 [LukeWM]
AxelPolleres: anyone else, Lee?
15:13:32 [bglimm]
LeeF, That's still useful ;-)
15:13:42 [chimezie]
i have to go unfortunately
15:13:46 [Zakim]
15:13:47 [LukeWM]
LeeF: I can look at completeness but not technical content.
15:13:52 [AxelPolleres]
topic: function library TF
15:14:21 [AxelPolleres]
15:14:25 [LukeWM]
AxelPolleres: function library TF has had a teleconference with Andy and Lee regarding the starting point.
15:15:01 [LukeWM]
AxelPolleres: we have agreed to propose a list of functions & operators based on Xquery
15:15:09 [LukeWM]
AxelPolleres: Andy has a minimal list already.
15:15:11 [bglimm]
Zakim, mute me
15:15:11 [Zakim]
bglimm should now be muted
15:15:22 [AxelPolleres]
15:15:46 [LukeWM]
AxelPolleres: all operators must have URL
15:16:34 [LukeWM]
AxelPolleres: issues around namespace, whether to reuse fn or not.
15:16:42 [LukeWM]
AxelPolleres: aggregates aren't covered yet.
15:17:20 [LukeWM]
AxelPolleres: need to wait for aggregate accessibility discussion
15:17:28 [bglimm]
Should we say anything about test cases for different entailment regimes?
15:17:29 [SteveH]
+1 to including in query 1.1 doc
15:17:30 [LukeWM]
AxelPolleres: this should be part of the query document.
15:17:43 [SteveH]
15:17:48 [SteveH]
ack me
15:17:52 [LukeWM]
AxelPolleres: should this be a comment?
15:18:19 [LukeWM]
SteveH: yes, we should say we plan to include a function library but say it isn't defined yet. To save time.
15:18:31 [LukeWM]
AxelPolleres: an editor's note that points to the wiki?
15:18:55 [LukeWM]
SteveH: we should be careful pointing to the wiki
15:19:03 [AxelPolleres]
ACTION: steveh to include commment on extended function library in current sparql/query-1.1 draft
15:19:03 [trackbot]
Created ACTION-97 - Include commment on extended function library in current sparql/query-1.1 draft [on Steve Harris - due 2009-09-29].
15:19:07 [LukeWM]
SteveH: I will include the comment
15:19:35 [SimonS]
15:19:43 [AxelPolleres]
topic: federated query TF
15:20:37 [LukeWM]
SimonS: design page on the wiki hasn't changed yet. The algebra operator syntax missing, but it doesn't seem to do anything - will send a mail to discuss this.
15:21:02 [LukeWM]
SimonS: one issue was that it should be an optional feature for security reasons.
15:21:03 [bglimm]
+1 to optional feature
15:21:19 [LukeWM]
SimonS: we should add a comment to the query document stating that it is optional.
15:21:29 [kasei]
optional features can mesh with service descriptions
15:21:49 [LukeWM]
SimonS: it could be allowed for update if we choose a more complex form, but frankly I don't think it's a good idea for FPWD.
15:22:14 [SteveH]
15:22:29 [LukeWM]
AxelPolleres: we should add comments in query and service description, Steve & Greg.
15:22:56 [LukeWM]
SteveH: the FPWD shouldn't mention this as it's time permitting - I forgot that the function library was also time permitting.
15:23:24 [SteveH]
+1 to LeeF
15:23:26 [LukeWM]
LeeF: lets not make a decision now, in general I agree with Steve. We need to ask ivan.
15:23:30 [SteveH]
it's safer not to metion it, probably
15:23:42 [SteveH]
can I lose my action to add it, for now
15:23:43 [AxelPolleres]
decision on whether FPWD should mention time permitting features postponed.
15:23:46 [LukeWM]
AxelPolleres: I'll ask Ivan
15:24:19 [AxelPolleres]
ACTION: Axel to ask ivan/eric whether we need to mention time permitting features in FPWD.
15:24:19 [trackbot]
Created ACTION-98 - Ask ivan/eric whether we need to mention time permitting features in FPWD. [on Axel Polleres - due 2009-09-29].
15:24:26 [LukeWM]
LeeF: I don't know how issues around IP exclusions work, anyone else?
15:24:38 [LukeWM]
LeeF, I hope that was a fair characterisation.
15:25:10 [AxelPolleres]
topic: property paths
15:25:31 [AxelPolleres]
LukeWM: we are gathering ideas about scope.
15:25:45 [LukeWM]
thanks for scribing AxelPolleres
15:26:25 [LukeWM]
LukeWM: alex also proposed that we combine the feature PathLength into PropertyPaths.
15:26:29 [AxelPolleres]
15:26:44 [AxelPolleres]
ack SteveH
15:26:58 [bglimm]
15:26:58 [Zakim]
15:27:02 [SteveH]
SimonS, are you going to stay on the line?
15:27:02 [Zakim]
15:27:03 [Zakim]
15:27:05 [Zakim]
15:27:10 [Zakim]
15:27:12 [Zakim]
15:27:18 [Zakim]
15:27:18 [LukeWM]
15:27:23 [Zakim]
15:27:33 [AxelPolleres]
rrsagent, make records public
15:27:39 [SimonKJ]
SimonKJ has left #sparql
15:28:03 [LeeF]
LukeWM, are you set to do the rest of the minutes prep? thanks for scribing
15:28:21 [Zakim]
15:28:36 [LukeWM]
LeeF, I might need pointing in the right direction, I haven't done it before, what do I have to do?
15:40:09 [Zakim]
15:40:11 [Zakim]
15:40:13 [Zakim]
SW_(SPARQL)10:00AM has ended
15:40:14 [Zakim]
Attendees were AxelPolleres, Ivan, +49.238.aaaa, LeeF, kasei, bglimm, SteveH, LukeWM, SimonS, EricP, OlivierCorby, SimonKJ, AlexPassant, Chimezie_Ogbuji, Orri, Prateek
15:45:02 [LeeF]
LukeWM, sorry for the delay - instructions are here:
15:45:33 [LukeWM]
great, thanks LeeF
15:49:31 [OlivierCorby]
OlivierCorby has left #sparql
15:54:10 [AxelPolleres]
16:01:32 [LeeF]
we shoudl add regrets
16:01:35 [LeeF]
from AndyS and pgearon
17:00:37 [AxelPolleres]
Leef, right... done
17:00:50 [AxelPolleres]
AxelPolleres has left #sparql
17:26:45 [Zakim]
Zakim has left #sparql
19:05:59 [SteveH]
SteveH has joined #sparql
19:33:27 [KjetilK]
LeeF or ericP, ping
19:36:44 [ericP]
19:37:36 [KjetilK]
I heard that we finally paid our fee, so I was wondering if you could re-add me to the mailing list?
19:37:57 [ericP]
you haven't paid *my* fee
19:38:15 [KjetilK]
preferably my private address, since I'm actually on a prolonged sick leave
19:38:25 [ericP]
actually, your AC rep (perhaps you) has to sign up for the group
19:38:27 [KjetilK]
OMG, more fees?
19:38:35 [KjetilK]
ah, ok
19:39:31 [ericP]
19:40:04 [KjetilK]
right, I'll send dn an email
19:42:12 [LeeF]
<sternly>eric prud'hommeaux, what did I tell you about extorting grafts from Working Group members?</sternly>
19:42:32 [ericP]
that you get a cut?
19:44:01 [KjetilK]
IT'S A CONSPIRACY!!!111 one eleven
19:44:41 [KjetilK]
19:47:55 [ericP]
sounds like a course number
20:14:06 [iv_an_ru]
iv_an_ru has joined #sparql
20:29:06 [LeeF]
it totally sounds like a noble life goal to end up teaching a class called "It's a conspiracy 111"
20:33:05 [KjetilK]
23:10:02 [SimonKJ]
SimonKJ has joined #sparql
23:15:21 [SimonKJ]
SimonKJ has left #sparql