<AxelPolleres> AOB: Does it make sense to discuss the entailment regime-URIs today?.... I ask because there would be a RIF call today, and, if I want to poke them, I should maybe start in that call (would need to leave early then...), cf. http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-dawg/2009OctDec/0084.html
There are several thing on the agenda that look like long and important.
<LeeF> hey, everyone
<LeeF> sorry i'm late
<LeeF> dialing in now
<AxelPolleres> Agenda is here (with additions from andy): http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-dawg/2009OctDec/0136.html
<LukeWM> does anyone know how to make the ?? stuff appear on the phone?
<LeeF> except zakim isn't working for me
<bglimm> Lee, I cannot here you
<LeeF> Not on the phone yet, trying to connect
<AxelPolleres> hmmm
<bglimm> ah
<kasei> LikeWM, "?? stuff"?
<bglimm> yes
<LukeWM> kasei, the code that identifies us to zakim. Is there something I can type into the phone keypad to make it appear on IRC?
<SteveH> it's something like #41
<kasei> 41#, I think
<kasei> hrmm
<scribe> scribe:AndyS
<scribe> scribenick:AndyS
LeeF: for now, move admin to later
LeeF: W3C typical model for FPWD is to publish something on time, with issues, but no sense of complete
<bglimm> I still have no CVS access (can connect, but have no rights to see the relevant folder)
LeeF: good to publish in advance of ISWC
... one hour panel on SPARQL at ISWC
... so generate community interest
... publish as many docs as possible
... the naming/versioing issue -- need to clarify. Individual drafts numbered (agreed F2F)
... then a chair talked about SPARQL 2.0
... and the individual docs having different numbers has been shown to be confusing
... may get worse with future doc versions
<LeeF> SteveH, are you talking?
<SteveH> yes
<SteveH> aaah
SteveH: The multi-version thing is confusing - feedback from colleagues.
... one label for the whole package
... if SPARQL 2.0, then use that not doc versions.
<SimonS> +1 for SPARQL2010
SteveH: suggest SPARQL-2010 style
<LukeWM> thanks LeeF
<SteveH> +1 to ivan
<AxelPolleres> http://www.w3.org/2009/sparql/meeting/2009-05-06#resolution_3
Ivan: no strong feelings but SPARQL-2.0 so SPARQL-2.0/Update
Axel: (reminder of discussion)
<kasei> does ivan's idea get weird if later on query is updated, and everything else without changes gets a version bump, too (so maybe update 1.1 == update 2.0)??
<kasei> seems like it gets weird either way.
<SteveH> that's why I prefer years
<SteveH> heh
ivan: if touch one, touch everything in practice so can happen but less likely
... breaks the W3C style.
... not been done before
<AxelPolleres> What speaks against going uniformly with 1.1 (looks like a compromise)?
ivan: XHTML was special -- other specs have used version by number OK
<AxelPolleres> SPARQL1.1/Query SPARQL1.1/Update ... instead of SPARQL/Query 1.1 SPARQL/Update 1.0, etc.
LeeF: propose SPARQL-X/Query etc
<SteveH> +1
<LeeF> PROPOSED: To give this round of SPARQL work its own name and name the components based on that
<ivan> +1
<chimezie> +1
<kasei> +1
<SimonS> +1
<bglimm> 0
<bglimm> yes
<AxelPolleres> +1 (if promised we stick with that ;-) )
<LeeF> RESOLVED: To give this round of SPARQL work its own name and name the components based on that, bglimm abstaining
<bglimm> I have no strong opinion on any
<LeeF> What is X?
<LeeF> 1.1
<LeeF> 2.0
<LeeF> 2
<LeeF> 2010
AndyS: SPARQL-2012 and publish early
pref for 2 not 2.0
ivan: cautious about 2010 style
<LeeF> acl AxelPolleres
strawpoll
<LeeF> straw poll: SPARQL 1.1
<kasei> +1
<AxelPolleres> +1
<bglimm> 0
<SteveH> 0
<KjetilK> +1
<ivan> +1
+0
<LeeF> 0
<chimezie> +1
<SimonS> +1
<LukeWM> 0
<LeeF> 1.1 - 6 +1s
<LeeF> straw poll: SPARQL 2 (or 2.0)
<SteveH> -1
<bglimm> 0
<kasei> -1
<KjetilK> 0
<AxelPolleres> 0
<ivan> 1
<SimonS> -1
<LeeF> +1
+1 (pref 2)
<LukeWM> 0
<chimezie> 0
<LeeF> less support for 2/2.0 then for 1.1
<LeeF> straw poll: SPARQL 2010
<SteveH> +1
<kasei> +1
<ivan> -1
<bglimm> 0
<KjetilK> -1
<LeeF> +1
<SimonS> +1
<chimezie> 0
<LukeWM> 0
0
<AxelPolleres> -1
<LeeF> PROPOSED: The current work be known as SPARQL 1.1 with the components being SPARQL 1.1 Query, SPARQL 1.1 Update, SPARQL 1.1 Protocol, etc.
<SteveH> seconded
<ivan> +1
<AxelPolleres> +1
<bglimm> +1
<LeeF> RESOLVED: The current work be known as SPARQL 1.1 with the components being SPARQL 1.1 Query, SPARQL 1.1 Update, SPARQL 1.1 Protocol, etc.
<scribe> ACTION: andy and steve: update the query document for SPARQL 1.1 (Query) before FPWD
<trackbot> Created ACTION-119 - And steve: update the query document for SPARQL 1.1 (Query) before FPWD [on Andy Seaborne - due 2009-10-20].
<LeeF> ACTION: Lee to fix his slides
<trackbot> Created ACTION-120 - Fix his slides [on Lee Feigenbaum - due 2009-10-20].
<SteveH> Query is already 1.1
<LeeF> ACTION: Eric and Lee to make sure FPWD documents reflect SPARQL 1.1 X style naming
<trackbot> Created ACTION-121 - And Lee to make sure FPWD documents reflect SPARQL 1.1 X style naming [on Eric Prud'hommeaux - due 2009-10-20].
but written wrongly
<SteveH> ah, ok
<chimezie> what about drafts that don't reference SPARQL __? is a change neccessary?
<SteveH> +1 to ivan
<SteveH> it has mappings to the update language
AndyS: the relationship to naming is SPARQL
chimezie: title already problematic: otherwise mostly neutral
<chimezie> i will concurr
<AxelPolleres> short names, some proposals: http://www.w3.org/TR/sparql11-query/ vs. http://www.w3.org/TR/sparql1.1-query/ vs. http://www.w3.org/TR/sparql-1.1-query/ etc. so... there are a couple of options
W3C is usually 11 isn't it?
<ivan> AndyS: yes
<LeeF> sparql11-query
<LeeF> sparql11-update
<LeeF> sparql11-protocol
<LeeF> sparql11-service-description
<ivan> sparql11-entailement ?
yuk -> ell-one-one
<LeeF> sparql11-rdf-http-update
but oh well
<AxelPolleres> e.g. http://www.w3.org/TR/xmlschema11-2/
ivan: will check what other groups have done
<SteveH> e.g. http://www.w3.org/TR/xml11/
<AxelPolleres> http://www.w3.org/TR/xml11/
Leef: short name style sparql11-xyz
<bglimm> owl2-profiles, owl2-syntax, etc it is for OWL
<ivan> AndyS: yes, pretty much
<LeeF> subtopic: SPARQL 1.1 Update
<LeeF> http://www.w3.org/2009/sparql/docs/update-1.0/
SteveH: current form - some contradictions and may confuse.
<SimonS> http://www.w3.org/mid/BD315460-58A8-46BF-8324-FB5D057715A3@garlik.com
<LeeF> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-dawg/2009OctDec/0041.html
SteveH: issues not agreed on are not called out (e.g. issue-20)
SimonS: not a contradiction as such - having trouble getting to W3C to do edits
LeeF: better to publish than polish - if we can identify the areas for issues to be called out as unresolved
SimonS: many changes
... reorder the doc to follows current SPARQL spec
... separate issues renamed to features in query
... inline issues
... grammar from common grammar
<SteveH> calls out to issues are good, thanks SimonS
(Could the grammar changes be logged so I can test them)
LeeF; all decisions modulo XSLT issues
LeeF: all decisions modulo XSLT issues
... no red stuff from xmlspec/XSLT processing
... will roll changes back to editors docs
<LukeWM> I'm happy to do a review
<LeeF> PROPOSED: Publish http://www.w3.org/2009/sparql/docs/update-1.0/ as FPWD under sparql11-update modulo Luke's approval of Simon's updates to text in section 4 and fixes to xml-spec issues
<SteveH> seconded
<ivan> +1
<bglimm> +1
<AxelPolleres> +1 (DERI)
+1 (HP)
<LeeF> RESOLVED: Publish http://www.w3.org/2009/sparql/docs/update-1.0/ as FPWD under sparql11-update modulo Luke's approval of Simon's updates to text in section 4 and fixes to xml-spec issues, no abstentions or objections
subtopic: SPARQL/update protocol
... SPARQL/Query
<LeeF> PROPOSED: That the actual short name under which SPARQL 1.1 Query be published as FPWD is sparql11-query
<ivan> +1
<bglimm> +1
seconded
<AxelPolleres> as an amendment to resolution http://www.w3.org/2009/sparql/meeting/2009-10-06#resolution_3
<AxelPolleres> +1
<LeeF> RESOLVED: That the actual short name under which SPARQL 1.1 Query be published as FPWD is sparql11-query, no abstentions or objections
<Zakim> AxelPolleres, you wanted to ask about formality wrt query
<LeeF> http://www.w3.org/2009/sparql/docs/http-rdf-update/
subtopic: SPARQL/update http protocol
chimezie: has addressed comments as best he can - issues highlighted
I'm happy to publish as is.
<SteveH> I'm happy
KjetilK: good enough for FPWD - but pref chnage "RDF knowledge" terminology
LeeF: suggestions for different name?
KjetilK: (unclear to scribe)
<LeeF> kjetil: maybe "graph information resource"?
LeeF: terminology can change in later drafts. Flag an issue
... flag an issue for now
<LeeF> ISSUE: Suitability of term "networked RDF knowledge"
<trackbot> Created ISSUE-44 - Suitability of term "networked RDF knowledge" ; please complete additional details at http://www.w3.org/2009/sparql/track/issues/44/edit .
<LeeF> sparql11-rdf-http-update ?
<KjetilK> sparql11-http-update ?
<KjetilK> isn't that enough?
with rdf
(not strong)
<LeeF> PROPOSED: Publish http://www.w3.org/2009/sparql/docs/http-rdf-update/ as sparql11-http-rdf-update modulo any xlm-spec issues
<LeeF> PROPOSED: Publish http://www.w3.org/2009/sparql/docs/http-rdf-update/ as FPWD at sparql11-http-rdf-update modulo any xlm-spec issues and adding SPARQL 1.1 to title and cleaning up references
<ivan> +1
<bglimm> +1
<KjetilK> +1
<LeeF> RESOLVED: Publish http://www.w3.org/2009/sparql/docs/http-rdf-update/ as FPWD at sparql11-http-rdf-update modulo any xlm-spec issues and adding SPARQL 1.1 to title and cleaning up references, no abstentions or objections
<AxelPolleres> +1 (DERI)
subtopic: SPARQL/protocol
<LeeF> http://www.w3.org/2009/sparql/docs/protocol-1.1/
<bglimm> what is the URL for that?
<bglimm> thanks
LeeF: overall structure OK - need heading for update (language by POST) examples
<bglimm> and it has XML errors
<triple-pattern> ?
<LeeF> AxelPolleres: include short change log of what's changed since SPARQL Protocol REC
LeeF: 2.2.1.13 - flag for removal
<LeeF> + flag XML input example for removal
<LeeF> + add placeholder for update examples
<LeeF> + change log from REC
<LeeF> + xml-spec issues
<LeeF> + previous editors
AndyS: didn't notice 2.2.1.13 (SPARQL/X usage) last time
<LeeF> + clarify text at beginning of section 2 to summarize what the protocol is all about (queries over HTTP GET and POST, updates over HTTP POST)
<LeeF> PROPOSED: To publish http://www.w3.org/2009/sparql/docs/protocol-1.1/ as FPWD at sparql11-protocol modulo list of changes noted in SPARQL WG 2009-10-13 meeting and modulo Axel's approval
<bglimm> +1
<ivan> +1
<LeeF> RESOLVED: To publish http://www.w3.org/2009/sparql/docs/protocol-1.1/ as FPWD at sparql11-protocol modulo list of changes noted in SPARQL WG 2009-10-13 meeting and modulo Axel's approval, no abstentions or objections
<AxelPolleres> ACTION: Axel to check changes on http://www.w3.org/2009/sparql/docs/protocol-1.1/ as agreed on and mail approval, if satisfied
<trackbot> Could not create new action (failed to parse response from server) - please contact sysreq with the details of what happened.
<trackbot> Could not create new action (unparseable data in server response: local variable 'd' referenced before assignment) - please contact sysreq with the details of what happened.
subtopic: SPARQL/service description
<LeeF> is http://kasei.us/2009/09/sparql/sd.txt still the latest version?
kasei: no CVS access yet
LeeF: modulo putting into W3C format
kasei: superproperty for feature; subproperty of feature language (query and/or update)
... missing URIs for actual names
LeeF: w3c resource availablity for publishing?
<bglimm> yes
ivan: heard CVS access problems
<bglimm> I can conect to the CVS server, but I cannot access the relevant folde
<bglimm> r
<bglimm> I contacted Eric, but haven't heard from him
<kasei> gwilliam
<bglimm> BGlimm
<bglimm> bglimm
<bglimm> it is all lowercase
LeeF: publication window for ISWC?
ivan: ISWC. Can publish late next week.
<kasei> i'd prefer not abbreviating
<bglimm> I am happy with the full thing
<LeeF> PROPOSED: Publish http://kasei.us/2009/09/sparql/sd.txt as FPWD at sparql11-service-description moduloe putting in W3C format
<bglimm> +1
<KjetilK> +1
<ivan> +1
<AxelPolleres> +1
<LeeF> RESOLVED: Publish http://kasei.us/2009/09/sparql/sd.txt as FPWD at sparql11-service-description moduloe putting in W3C format, no abstentions or objections
<bglimm> http://www.w3.org/2009/sparql/wiki/Design:EntailmentRegimes
<bglimm> yes
<bglimm> I agree
AndyS; entailment RDF, RDFS are OK for FPWD
AndyS: entailment RDF, RDFS are OK for FPWD
... not sections on syntax or extensions
... lots of discussion that may imply things that are not planned
<bglimm> OWL should also be taken out/left only as a header
ivan: needs adapting to W3C style.
<bglimm> Are there other reviewers than Ivan?
<LeeF> PROPOSED: To publish http://www.w3.org/2009/sparql/wiki/Design:EntailmentRegimes as FPWD at sparql11-entailment modulo putting it in W3C format, and removing details of regimes other than RDF and RDFS and removing Alternative Syntax and Extensions sections
<AxelPolleres> shall we also set someone to approve?
<AxelPolleres> +1
<ivan> +1
<bglimm> CAn I say +1 as the editor?
<bglimm> +1
<LeeF> RESOLVED: To publish http://www.w3.org/2009/sparql/wiki/Design:EntailmentRegimes as FPWD at sparql11-entailment modulo putting it in W3C format, and removing details of regimes other than RDF and RDFS and removing Alternative Syntax and Extensions sections, no abstentions or objections
<LeeF> ACTION: Lee to coordinate with Axel, Ivan, Eric, and the editors to publish our documents
<trackbot> Created ACTION-123 - Coordinate with Axel, Ivan, Eric, and the editors to publish our documents [on Lee Feigenbaum - due 2009-10-20].
adjourned
<LeeF> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-dawg/2009AprJun/0406.html
<bglimm> WWW/2009/sparql/docs/
"A problem occurred in a Python script."
"HTTPError: HTTP Error 404: Not Found"
ivan? do yuo have a few more minutes? (after CVS issues)
hmm - I was Garlik!
ivan - still here
No RRSagent - no chatlog. Can I retro fix this up somehow?
<ivan> andy?
hi
Problem with minutes
<ivan> ouch
<ivan> I told sysreq to reinstante zakim!
<ivan> nobody started neither trackbot nor rrsagent
<ivan> :-(
trackbot is here
<ivan> but it was not used to start up the conference
<ivan> so rrsagent did not start either...
I invited zakim - should have done rrsagent
<ivan> yep:-(
Is the timestamp needed? My client does not seem to dump that ... stil checking
I'm still moving machines - xchat logging was not to file - do you have a copy?
<ivan> I have a copy of the log, I hope
<ivan> checking
<ivan> andy, I will send you the logs by email
thx