<LeeF> Present: LeeF, Axel, Eric, ivanh, andy, iv_an_ru, kasei, alex, kjetil, simon, john-l, steve, lukewm, bijan, pgearon, Prateek
13:58:40 <trackbot> Meeting: SPARQL Working Group Teleconference
13:58:40 <trackbot> Date: 26 May 2009
Trackbot IRC Bot: Date: 26 May 2009 ←
14:02:00 <LeeF> Chair: AxelPolleres
14:02:20 <LeeF> Agenda: http://www.w3.org/2009/sparql/wiki/Agenda-2009-05-26
14:02:45 <LeeF> LukeWM, can you scribe today?
Lee Feigenbaum: LukeWM, can you scribe today? ←
14:02:53 <LeeF> You are the highest person on the scribe list who is here right now :)
Lee Feigenbaum: You are the highest person on the scribe list who is here right now :) ←
14:03:15 <LukeWM> sure
Luke Wilson-Mawer: sure ←
14:03:20 <LeeF> thanks
Lee Feigenbaum: thanks ←
14:03:28 <LeeF> Scribenick: LukeWM
(Scribe set to Luke Wilson-Mawer)
<LeeF> topic: past minutes
14:05:23 <LukeWM> Axel: main focus is talking about update
Axel Polleres: main focus is talking about update ←
14:05:40 <LukeWM> Axel: first of all lets approve the minutes from last time & F2F
Axel Polleres: first of all lets approve the minutes from last time & F2F ←
14:05:54 <LeeF> PROPOSED: Approve minutes at http://www.w3.org/2009/sparql/meeting/2009-05-19
PROPOSED: Approve minutes at http://www.w3.org/2009/sparql/meeting/2009-05-19 ←
14:06:07 <LeeF> RESOLVED: Approve minutes at http://www.w3.org/2009/sparql/meeting/2009-05-19
RESOLVED: Approve minutes at http://www.w3.org/2009/sparql/meeting/2009-05-19 ←
14:06:20 <LeeF> PROPOSED: Approve minutes of F2F1, Day1, Day2
PROPOSED: Approve minutes of F2F1, Day1, Day2 ←
14:06:21 <LeeF> http://www.w3.org/2009/sparql/meeting/2009-05-06
Lee Feigenbaum: http://www.w3.org/2009/sparql/meeting/2009-05-06 ←
14:06:22 <LukeWM> AxelPolleres2: lets also do the ones from the F2F meeting
Axel Polleres: lets also do the ones from the F2F meeting ←
14:06:24 <LeeF> http://www.w3.org/2009/sparql/meeting/2009-05-07
Lee Feigenbaum: http://www.w3.org/2009/sparql/meeting/2009-05-07 ←
14:06:45 <LeeF> RESOLVED: Approve F2F minutes at http://www.w3.org/2009/sparql/meeting/2009-05-06 and http://www.w3.org/2009/sparql/meeting/2009-05-07
RESOLVED: Approve F2F minutes at http://www.w3.org/2009/sparql/meeting/2009-05-06 and http://www.w3.org/2009/sparql/meeting/2009-05-07 ←
14:06:57 <LukeWM> AxelPolleres2: OK, next meeting will be tuesday
Axel Polleres: OK, next meeting will be tuesday ←
14:07:20 <LukeWM> AxelPolleres2: next on the scribe list is Chimezie
Axel Polleres: next on the scribe list is Chimezie ←
<LeeF> topic: liaisons
14:07:56 <LukeWM> Axel: now Liason's. Bijan, anything from Owl?
Axel Polleres: now Liason's. Bijan, anything from Owl? ←
14:08:12 <LukeWM> bijan: rdftext is ongoing
Bijan Parsia: rdftext is ongoing ←
14:08:30 <AxelPolleres2> q?
Axel Polleres: q? ←
14:08:45 <LukeWM> ... owl is going to vote tomorrow, so it would be good to know about anything now.
... owl is going to vote tomorrow, so it would be good to know about anything now. ←
14:08:56 <bijan> Because of the semantic equivalence between typed rdf:text literals and plain RDF literals in datatype interpretations, the rdf:text datatype is "implicitly defined" by the set of all plain RDF literals, and each plain RDF literal can be understood as an idiosyncratic lexical form for the corresponding typed rdf:text literal. In order not to introduce syntactic redundancy in RDF graphs, typed rdf:text literals must not occur explicitly in published RDF content
Bijan Parsia: Because of the semantic equivalence between typed rdf:text literals and plain RDF literals in datatype interpretations, the rdf:text datatype is "implicitly defined" by the set of all plain RDF literals, and each plain RDF literal can be understood as an idiosyncratic lexical form for the corresponding typed rdf:text literal. In order not to introduce syntactic redundancy in RDF graphs, typed rdf:text literals must not occur explicitly in published RDF content ←
14:09:18 <AxelPolleres2> http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/wiki/InternationalizedStringSpec
Axel Polleres: http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/wiki/InternationalizedStringSpec ←
14:09:19 <LukeWM> eric: the form is "quote" bob "quote" en
Eric Prud'hommeaux: the form is "quote" bob "quote" en ←
14:09:35 <LukeWM> eric: the challenge is mixing 2 specs
Eric Prud'hommeaux: the challenge is mixing 2 specs ←
14:10:04 <AndyS> One thing still missing : need to say that BGP matching exposes rdf forms, not ^^rdf:text.
Andy Seaborne: One thing still missing : need to say that BGP matching exposes rdf forms, not ^^rdf:text. ←
14:10:18 <LukeWM> bijan: if you have an rdf api to e.g. jena, required behaviour is to expose it as a plain literal
Bijan Parsia: if you have an rdf api to e.g. jena, required behaviour is to expose it as a plain literal ←
14:10:29 <LukeWM> ... can expose it as a typed literal but not required
... can expose it as a typed literal but not required ←
14:10:42 <LukeWM> ericP: we're on the same page - the form in RDF is a plain literal
Eric Prud'hommeaux: we're on the same page - the form in RDF is a plain literal ←
14:10:53 <LukeWM> AndyS: you must get back the rdf forms
Andy Seaborne: you must get back the rdf forms ←
14:11:02 <ericP> q+ to say doubt that BGPs need to be mentioned
Eric Prud'hommeaux: q+ to say doubt that BGPs need to be mentioned ←
14:11:47 <LukeWM> AxelPolleres2: Asks andy a question
Axel Polleres: Asks andy a question ←
14:11:57 <LukeWM> AndyS: graph is not the right word.
Andy Seaborne: graph is not the right word. ←
14:12:21 <LukeWM> bijan: Andy, is there something you'd like to include
Bijan Parsia: Andy, is there something you'd like to include ←
14:12:30 <LukeWM> AndyS: yes
Andy Seaborne: yes ←
14:12:45 <LukeWM> bijan: you prefer that to Sparql saying something about it
Bijan Parsia: you prefer that to Sparql saying something about it ←
14:13:06 <LukeWM> AndyS: then you don't end up with a dependency.
Andy Seaborne: then you don't end up with a dependency. ←
14:13:23 <LukeWM> AndyS: Sparql working group can't do every extension.
Andy Seaborne: Sparql working group can't do every extension. ←
14:13:39 <LukeWM> AndyS: otherwise everything will come back to SPARQL WG
Andy Seaborne: otherwise everything will come back to SPARQL WG ←
14:13:45 <AxelPolleres2> q?
Axel Polleres: q? ←
14:13:55 <LukeWM> bijan: so, we should include Filter functions etc?
Bijan Parsia: so, we should include Filter functions etc? ←
14:14:16 <AxelPolleres2> ack ericP
Axel Polleres: ack ericP ←
14:14:16 <Zakim> ericP, you wanted to say doubt that BGPs need to be mentioned
Zakim IRC Bot: ericP, you wanted to say doubt that BGPs need to be mentioned ←
14:14:22 <LukeWM> AndyS: section in Sparql spec tells how to bolt in other entailment regimes
Andy Seaborne: section in Sparql spec tells how to bolt in other entailment regimes ←
14:15:16 <AxelPolleres2> http://www.w3.org/TR/rdf-sparql-query/#bgpExtend talks about well-formed graphs, not well-formed scoping graphs.
Axel Polleres: http://www.w3.org/TR/rdf-sparql-query/#bgpExtend talks about well-formed graphs, not well-formed scoping graphs. ←
14:15:20 <LukeWM> eric: if there is no special entailment, then we don't need a specific reference to SPARQL.
Eric Prud'hommeaux: if there is no special entailment, then we don't need a specific reference to SPARQL. ←
14:15:43 <LukeWM> AndyS: the case I'm thinking of is SPARQL owl
Andy Seaborne: the case I'm thinking of is SPARQL owl ←
14:16:16 <LukeWM> AxelPolleres2: I agree we should cover this later, and get back on topic
Axel Polleres: I agree we should cover this later, and get back on topic ←
14:16:28 <LukeWM> AxelPolleres2: anything else from other working groups?
Axel Polleres: anything else from other working groups? ←
14:17:14 <LukeWM> ivanh: we're still trying to get the right chair for RDB2RDF
Ivan Herman: we're still trying to get the right chair for RDB2RDF ←
14:17:30 <AlexPassant> btw, nothing from the SocialWeb XG - might be interesting contact points later when it comes to authentication in SPARUL
Alex Passant: btw, nothing from the SocialWeb XG - might be interesting contact points later when it comes to authentication in SPARUL ←
14:17:45 <ericP> q+ to provide some background
Eric Prud'hommeaux: q+ to provide some background ←
<LeeF> topic: F2F #2 at TPAC in November?
14:18:04 <LukeWM> AxelPolleres2: should we hold the next face to face in conjunction with the t-pac in california
Axel Polleres: should we hold the next face to face in conjunction with the t-pac in california ←
14:18:17 <LukeWM> ericP: there are reasons to have it at the hotel instead of e.g. HP
Eric Prud'hommeaux: there are reasons to have it at the hotel instead of e.g. HP ←
14:19:02 <LukeWM> ericP: Advantage of HP is that we can do a split face to face, advantage of t-pac is running into other folks.
Eric Prud'hommeaux: Advantage of HP is that we can do a split face to face, advantage of t-pac is running into other folks. ←
14:19:07 <AxelPolleres2> q?
Axel Polleres: q? ←
14:19:12 <LukeWM> ericP: can do 1 day and 1 day at t-pac
Eric Prud'hommeaux: can do 1 day and 1 day at t-pac ←
14:19:59 <ivanh> I can probably come
Ivan Herman: I can probably come ←
14:20:01 <ericP> +1
Eric Prud'hommeaux: +1 ←
14:20:02 <LukeWM> AxelPolleres2: Who can come?
Axel Polleres: Who can come? ←
14:20:04 <AndyS> Too early to be sure.
Andy Seaborne: Too early to be sure. ←
14:20:06 <pgearon> +1
Paul Gearon: +1 ←
14:20:08 <AxelPolleres2> +1
Axel Polleres: +1 ←
14:20:09 <SimonS> +1
Simon Schenk: +1 ←
14:20:10 <Prateek> Too early to be sure
Prateek Jain: Too early to be sure ←
14:20:12 <AlexPassant> probably not
Alex Passant: probably not ←
14:20:14 <SteveH> probably not
Steve Harris: probably not ←
14:20:15 <kasei> I can probably attend, but not totally certain at this point.
Greg Williams: I can probably attend, but not totally certain at this point. ←
14:20:16 <bijan> Probably not physically
Bijan Parsia: Probably not physically ←
14:20:17 <john-l> Probably not.
John Clark: Probably not. ←
14:20:23 <LeeF> +1
Lee Feigenbaum: +1 ←
14:20:35 <iv_an_ru> probably via phone only
Ivan Mikhailov: probably via phone only ←
14:20:37 <LukeWM> AxelPolleres2: who can do a 2 site meeting.
Axel Polleres: who can do a 2 site meeting. ←
14:20:40 <SteveH> depends what the sites were
Steve Harris: depends what the sites were ←
14:20:40 <bijan> Depends on the site :)
Bijan Parsia: Depends on the site :) ←
14:21:06 <AlexPassant> 2 sites might be ok - depending on the site as well
Alex Passant: 2 sites might be ok - depending on the site as well ←
14:21:18 <LukeWM> AndyS: I thought the point of TPAC was to meet other groups
Andy Seaborne: I thought the point of TPAC was to meet other groups ←
14:21:27 <LukeWM> ... so video conference is more irrelevant
... so video conference is more irrelevant ←
14:21:44 <LukeWM> LeeF: I hope it's half own work and half working out coordination parts
Lee Feigenbaum: I hope it's half own work and half working out coordination parts ←
14:21:59 <LukeWM> AxelPolleres2: Maybe at that point more people will have joined the group
Axel Polleres: Maybe at that point more people will have joined the group ←
14:22:22 <LukeWM> ericP: what was the conclusion
Eric Prud'hommeaux: what was the conclusion ←
14:22:32 <LukeWM> AxelPolleres2: to do with time difference
Axel Polleres: to do with time difference ←
14:22:39 <LukeWM> ericP: so we do meet at TPAC
Eric Prud'hommeaux: so we do meet at TPAC ←
14:22:56 <LukeWM> AndyS: 6 people can go, maybe
Andy Seaborne: 6 people can go, maybe ←
14:23:23 <AndyS> Are there more on the WBS?
Andy Seaborne: Are there more on the WBS? ←
14:23:26 <LukeWM> ericP: Attend 2 days at TPAC?
Eric Prud'hommeaux: Attend 2 days at TPAC? ←
14:23:39 <LukeWM> LeeF: Let's figure this out in the next few weeks.
Lee Feigenbaum: Let's figure this out in the next few weeks. ←
14:23:58 <ericP> RESOLVED: plan A is to meet two days at TPAC, though plan A is at risk
RESOLVED: plan A is to meet two days at TPAC, though plan A is at risk ←
14:24:04 <LukeWM> AxelPolleres2: can those who were unsure try to find out.
Axel Polleres: can those who were unsure try to find out. ←
<LeeF> topic: Update
14:24:36 <LukeWM> AxelPolleres2: Let's talk about update, we already have use cases.
Axel Polleres: Let's talk about update, we already have use cases. ←
14:24:38 <AxelPolleres2> http://www.w3.org/2009/sparql/wiki/Category:UpdateUseCases
Axel Polleres: http://www.w3.org/2009/sparql/wiki/Category:UpdateUseCases ←
14:25:14 <LukeWM> AxelPolleres2: lets go through quickly. First data integration
Axel Polleres: lets go through quickly. First data integration ←
14:25:15 <AxelPolleres2> http://www.w3.org/2009/sparql/wiki/DataIntegration
Axel Polleres: http://www.w3.org/2009/sparql/wiki/DataIntegration ←
14:25:49 <LukeWM> AlexPassant: each time a new data is created we send a ping to the triple store
Alex Passant: each time a new data is created we send a ping to the triple store ←
14:26:07 <LukeWM> AlexPassant: fetching from ping the semantic web and using LOAD as well.
Alex Passant: fetching from ping the semantic web and using LOAD as well. ←
14:27:16 <LukeWM> AlexPassant: needs to load and create graphs...
Alex Passant: needs to load and create graphs... ←
14:27:30 <LukeWM> AlexPassant: are they load, additive or replacing
Alex Passant: are they load, additive or replacing ←
14:27:31 <AndyS> q+
Andy Seaborne: q+ ←
14:27:43 <LukeWM> AlexPassant: the first is replace, second additive, correct
Alex Passant: the first is replace, second additive, correct ←
14:27:46 <LukeWM> AlexPassant: yes
Alex Passant: yes ←
14:28:07 <LukeWM> AndyS: Need to load graphs into store with the name they have in the wild, right?
Andy Seaborne: Need to load graphs into store with the name they have in the wild, right? ←
14:28:10 <LukeWM> AlexPassant: yes
Alex Passant: yes ←
14:28:20 <AxelPolleres2> q?
Axel Polleres: q? ←
14:28:24 <LukeWM> AndyS: doing this seems common, so it needs to be natural to do
Andy Seaborne: doing this seems common, so it needs to be natural to do ←
14:28:26 <SteveH> we do load X into X equivalent a lot too
Steve Harris: we do load X into X equivalent a lot too ←
14:28:27 <AndyS> ack me
Andy Seaborne: ack me ←
14:28:44 <AlexPassant> http://www.w3.org/2009/sparql/wiki/PersonalTagging
Alex Passant: http://www.w3.org/2009/sparql/wiki/PersonalTagging ←
14:29:00 <AndyS> Looks to me like a replace as well.
Andy Seaborne: Looks to me like a replace as well. ←
14:29:03 <ericP> q-
Eric Prud'hommeaux: q- ←
14:29:07 <LukeWM> AlexPassant: using insert into graphs and uploading them from the web
Alex Passant: using insert into graphs and uploading them from the web ←
14:29:35 <AxelPolleres2> q?
Axel Polleres: q? ←
14:29:51 <LukeWM> AxelPolleres2: Syntax is mix of scripting?
Axel Polleres: Syntax is mix of scripting? ←
14:30:01 <LukeWM> AxelPolleres2: there is a mix of php etc.
Axel Polleres: there is a mix of php etc. ←
14:30:21 <LukeWM> AxelPolleres2: the php was just so you can llook at the sparql query
Axel Polleres: the php was just so you can llook at the sparql query ←
14:30:32 <LukeWM> s/AxelPolleres2/AlexPassant /
s/AxelPolleres2/AlexPassant / ←
14:30:53 <LukeWM> AxelPolleres2: there is no query part involved either?
Axel Polleres: there is no query part involved either? ←
14:31:02 <LukeWM> AlexPassant: no
Alex Passant: no ←
14:31:03 <AxelPolleres2> q?
Axel Polleres: q? ←
14:31:19 <AxelPolleres2> http://www.w3.org/2009/sparql/wiki/DocUpdateTracking
Axel Polleres: http://www.w3.org/2009/sparql/wiki/DocUpdateTracking ←
14:31:29 <LukeWM> AxelPolleres2: next use case is doc update tracking
Axel Polleres: next use case is doc update tracking ←
14:31:40 <LukeWM> pgearon: this has come up a few times with mulgara
Paul Gearon: this has come up a few times with mulgara ←
14:32:12 <LukeWM> pgearon: need to be able to do queries and construct new blanknodes for every binding
Paul Gearon: need to be able to do queries and construct new blanknodes for every binding ←
14:32:34 <LukeWM> pgearon: creates a template structure that starts out empty and contains a load of blank nodes
Paul Gearon: creates a template structure that starts out empty and contains a load of blank nodes ←
14:32:51 <AxelPolleres2> q?
Axel Polleres: q? ←
14:33:03 <LukeWM> pgearon: people who use mulgara do alot of updates that create blank nodes on the fly
Paul Gearon: people who use mulgara do alot of updates that create blank nodes on the fly ←
14:33:10 <LukeWM> AxelPolleres2: it is querying, right?
Axel Polleres: it is querying, right? ←
14:33:32 <LukeWM> pgearon: it's in TQL
Paul Gearon: it's in TQL ←
14:34:10 <LukeWM> pgearon: and sparql update syntax
Paul Gearon: and sparql update syntax ←
14:34:36 <LukeWM> pgearon: uses OPTIONAL/filter !bound to do the equivalent of MINUS
Paul Gearon: uses OPTIONAL/filter !bound to do the equivalent of MINUS ←
14:34:51 <LukeWM> AxelPolleres2: this is the same as a blanknode in a construct?
Axel Polleres: this is the same as a blanknode in a construct? ←
14:34:52 <SteveH> that's not what CONSTRUCT does
Steve Harris: that's not what CONSTRUCT does ←
14:34:56 <SteveH> oh, sorry
Steve Harris: oh, sorry ←
14:34:58 <LukeWM> pgearon: yes
Paul Gearon: yes ←
14:35:01 <SteveH> yes, it is
Steve Harris: yes, it is ←
14:35:14 <AxelPolleres2> q?
Axel Polleres: q? ←
14:35:21 <LukeWM> pgearon: looking at insert, construct and this just about covers doing that.
Paul Gearon: looking at insert, construct and this just about covers doing that. ←
14:35:24 <AndyS> Unfortunately, need both cases of bnodes.
Andy Seaborne: Unfortunately, need both cases of bnodes. ←
14:35:39 <LukeWM> AxelPolleres2: any more questions? Lets go to editing FOAF
Axel Polleres: any more questions? Lets go to editing FOAF ←
14:36:03 <SteveH> LukeWM: talking about http://www.w3.org/2009/sparql/wiki/EditingFoafData
Luke Wilson-Mawer: talking about http://www.w3.org/2009/sparql/wiki/EditingFoafData [ Scribe Assist by Steve Harris ] ←
14:36:04 <SimonS> http://www.w3.org/2009/sparql/wiki/EditingFoafData
Simon Schenk: http://www.w3.org/2009/sparql/wiki/EditingFoafData ←
14:36:12 <SteveH> LukeWM: 2 usecases
Luke Wilson-Mawer: 2 usecases [ Scribe Assist by Steve Harris ] ←
14:36:26 <SteveH> LukeWM: 1) delete some triples based around a WHERE, to change name
Luke Wilson-Mawer: 1) delete some triples based around a WHERE, to change name [ Scribe Assist by Steve Harris ] ←
14:36:35 <SteveH> LukeWM: bare minimun
Luke Wilson-Mawer: bare minimun [ Scribe Assist by Steve Harris ] ←
14:36:36 <AxelPolleres2> (thanks steve)
Axel Polleres: (thanks steve) ←
14:36:49 <SteveH> LukeWM: 2nd usecase, more complicated, changing some details from address
Luke Wilson-Mawer: 2nd usecase, more complicated, changing some details from address [ Scribe Assist by Steve Harris ] ←
14:36:58 <SteveH> LukeWM: has to delete sub-tree hanging of address
Luke Wilson-Mawer: has to delete sub-tree hanging of address [ Scribe Assist by Steve Harris ] ←
14:37:11 <SteveH> LukeWM: done it with some fancy syntax, like property path syntax
Luke Wilson-Mawer: done it with some fancy syntax, like property path syntax [ Scribe Assist by Steve Harris ] ←
14:37:19 <SteveH> LukeWM: .+ matches any predicate
Luke Wilson-Mawer: .+ matches any predicate [ Scribe Assist by Steve Harris ] ←
14:37:29 <SteveH> LukeWM: usecase for prop paths in update
Luke Wilson-Mawer: usecase for prop paths in update [ Scribe Assist by Steve Harris ] ←
14:38:49 <AxelPolleres2> "replace" values by delete all/insert
Axel Polleres: "replace" values by delete all/insert ←
14:38:56 <AxelPolleres2> q?
Axel Polleres: q? ←
14:39:33 <SteveH> LukeWM: intended to be recursive
Luke Wilson-Mawer: intended to be recursive [ Scribe Assist by Steve Harris ] ←
14:39:45 <LukeWM> AxelPolleres2: you would delete all addresses, and replace with just the one, right?
Axel Polleres: you would delete all addresses, and replace with just the one, right? ←
14:39:54 <AxelPolleres2> delete subtrees!
Axel Polleres: delete subtrees! ←
14:39:55 <SteveH> LukeWM: real code just goes a couple of hops, but would like to delete entire tree
Luke Wilson-Mawer: real code just goes a couple of hops, but would like to delete entire tree [ Scribe Assist by Steve Harris ] ←
14:40:06 <SteveH> LukeWM: seems like it could get complicated
Luke Wilson-Mawer: seems like it could get complicated [ Scribe Assist by Steve Harris ] ←
14:40:15 <iv_an_ru> hm, what's constructed is deleted, recursive delete requires recursive query and that's all.
Ivan Mikhailov: hm, what's constructed is deleted, recursive delete requires recursive query and that's all. ←
14:40:21 <SteveH> LukeWM: could have other trees that depend on this one
Luke Wilson-Mawer: could have other trees that depend on this one [ Scribe Assist by Steve Harris ] ←
14:41:24 <LukeWM> SimonS: you could shoot yourself in the foot with this
Simon Schenk: you could shoot yourself in the foot with this ←
14:41:28 <AxelPolleres2> q?
Axel Polleres: q? ←
14:41:32 <LukeWM> AxelPolleres2: the semantics is clear though, right
Axel Polleres: the semantics is clear though, right ←
14:41:40 <LukeWM> SimonS: yes, semantics are clear
Simon Schenk: yes, semantics are clear ←
14:41:44 <AxelPolleres2> http://www.w3.org/2009/sparql/wiki/ResourceTopicPortals
Axel Polleres: http://www.w3.org/2009/sparql/wiki/ResourceTopicPortals ←
14:41:50 <kjetil> Zakim, unmute me
Kjetil Kjernsmo: Zakim, unmute me ←
14:41:50 <Zakim> kjetil should no longer be muted
Zakim IRC Bot: kjetil should no longer be muted ←
14:42:00 <LukeWM> AxelPolleres2: on to the last use case, Resoure Topic Portals
Axel Polleres: on to the last use case, Resoure Topic Portals ←
14:42:19 <LukeWM> kjetil: we used sparql update with ARQ
Kjetil Kjernsmo: we used sparql update with ARQ ←
14:43:03 <LukeWM> kjetil: we have a java coder using queries and he wasn't a semantic web enthusiast, hence he's interesting
Kjetil Kjernsmo: we have a java coder using queries and he wasn't a semantic web enthusiast, hence he's interesting ←
14:43:36 <LukeWM> kjetil: second query uses where clause where you bind the variables
Kjetil Kjernsmo: second query uses where clause where you bind the variables ←
14:43:50 <SteveH> q+ to ask about "Insert new concept"
Steve Harris: q+ to ask about "Insert new concept" ←
14:43:58 <LukeWM> kjetil: there is also a map editing, where all URIs in system had to be changed
Kjetil Kjernsmo: there is also a map editing, where all URIs in system had to be changed ←
14:44:21 <LukeWM> kjetil: final query moves data between graphs.
Kjetil Kjernsmo: final query moves data between graphs. ←
14:44:51 <LukeWM> kjetil: could simplify the queries probably. But we have 2 cases of where clause to bind variables.
Kjetil Kjernsmo: could simplify the queries probably. But we have 2 cases of where clause to bind variables. ←
14:45:09 <LukeWM> AxelPolleres2: what do you suggest for the last one, they should be easier?
Axel Polleres: what do you suggest for the last one, they should be easier? ←
14:45:17 <LeeF> From where I stand as someone surprisingly disinterested in the 'update' part of our work, I hear requirements for both "constant" data loading/replacing and for "query-based" data mutation
Lee Feigenbaum: From where I stand as someone surprisingly disinterested in the 'update' part of our work, I hear requirements for both "constant" data loading/replacing and for "query-based" data mutation ←
14:45:30 <LukeWM> kjetil: to do it in a simpler way would be interesting, but should be weighed against other stuff.
Kjetil Kjernsmo: to do it in a simpler way would be interesting, but should be weighed against other stuff. ←
14:45:34 <SteveH> it's not a trivial move
Steve Harris: it's not a trivial move ←
14:45:40 <SteveH> q?
Steve Harris: q? ←
14:45:49 <LukeWM> kjetil: I don't know if it would be that common to want to move stuff between graphs.
Kjetil Kjernsmo: I don't know if it would be that common to want to move stuff between graphs. ←
14:46:12 <LukeWM> SteveH: based on my limited example of sparql update, only the last one needs a where
Steve Harris: based on my limited example of sparql update, only the last one needs a where ←
14:46:21 <LukeWM> SteveH: perhaps someone else can correct me on that?
Steve Harris: perhaps someone else can correct me on that? ←
14:46:56 <AndyS> q+ to comment on the DELETE P WHERE P form.
Andy Seaborne: q+ to comment on the DELETE P WHERE P form. ←
14:47:01 <LukeWM> kjetil: In the merge 2 concepts section, the predicate and object are taken out...
Kjetil Kjernsmo: In the merge 2 concepts section, the predicate and object are taken out... ←
14:47:25 <pgearon> LeeF, that exactly covers our user requirements (constant updates and query-based updates)
Paul Gearon: LeeF, that exactly covers our user requirements (constant updates and query-based updates) ←
14:47:27 <LukeWM> AxelPolleres2: Basically DELETE is the same as a WHERE, in one case
Axel Polleres: Basically DELETE is the same as a WHERE, in one case ←
14:47:32 <LukeWM> SteveH: I might be wrong
Steve Harris: I might be wrong ←
14:47:45 <LukeWM> AndyS: I think SteveH is right in intent.
Andy Seaborne: I think SteveH is right in intent. ←
14:47:57 <LukeWM> AndyS: If you have unbound variables in the pattern, it's like a CONSTRUCT
Andy Seaborne: If you have unbound variables in the pattern, it's like a CONSTRUCT ←
14:48:22 <LukeWM> ...you get into repetition, it's common and ugly.
...you get into repetition, it's common and ugly. ←
14:48:25 <AxelPolleres2> andyS: repition is ugly.
Andy Seaborne: repition is ugly. [ Scribe Assist by Axel Polleres ] ←
14:48:45 <AxelPolleres2> q?
Axel Polleres: q? ←
14:48:48 <AndyS> ack me
Andy Seaborne: ack me ←
14:48:48 <Zakim> AndyS, you wanted to comment on the DELETE P WHERE P form.
Zakim IRC Bot: AndyS, you wanted to comment on the DELETE P WHERE P form. ←
14:48:52 <SteveH> ack me
Steve Harris: ack me ←
14:48:52 <Zakim> SteveH, you wanted to ask about "Insert new concept"
Zakim IRC Bot: SteveH, you wanted to ask about "Insert new concept" ←
14:48:55 <SimonS> q+
Simon Schenk: q+ ←
14:48:58 <LukeWM> SteveH: I didn't realise DELETE worked like CONSTRUCT
Steve Harris: I didn't realise DELETE worked like CONSTRUCT ←
14:49:05 <AndyS> q+
Andy Seaborne: q+ ←
14:49:36 <LukeWM> SimonS: I thought WHERE would be the matching part but delete would be like the construct pattern. Is that true?
Simon Schenk: I thought WHERE would be the matching part but delete would be like the construct pattern. Is that true? ←
14:49:39 <ericP> that's how i read it
Eric Prud'hommeaux: that's how i read it ←
14:50:28 <SteveH> -1 to convenience forms like that
Steve Harris: -1 to convenience forms like that ←
14:50:29 <LukeWM> AndyS: that was the intention. If you have to extract the sub pattern, it's pretty ugly.
Andy Seaborne: that was the intention. If you have to extract the sub pattern, it's pretty ugly. ←
14:50:36 <SteveH> DELETE { * } maybe
Steve Harris: DELETE { * } maybe ←
14:50:45 <LeeF> convenience forms the 2nd time around :-)
Lee Feigenbaum: convenience forms the 2nd time around :-) ←
14:50:49 <SimonS> ack me
Simon Schenk: ack me ←
14:51:03 <SteveH> q?
Steve Harris: q? ←
14:51:03 <AndyS> DELETE * WHERE P
Andy Seaborne: DELETE * WHERE P ←
14:51:04 <LukeWM> AxelPolleres2: there are use cases for both complex, with needed WHERE clause, as well as more lightweight ones.
Axel Polleres: there are use cases for both complex, with needed WHERE clause, as well as more lightweight ones. ←
14:51:07 <LeeF> the first time around should require lots of pain - if people use it despite the pain, then you can be confident it's important :-D
Lee Feigenbaum: the first time around should require lots of pain - if people use it despite the pain, then you can be confident it's important :-D ←
14:51:21 <LeeF> c.f. optional/!bound
Lee Feigenbaum: c.f. optional/!bound ←
14:51:26 <AndyS> c.f. CONSTRUCT * (which has issues with nested GRAPH but solvable
Andy Seaborne: c.f. CONSTRUCT * (which has issues with nested GRAPH but solvable ←
14:51:28 <LukeWM> AxelPolleres2: AndyS suggested a phased approach in the mail.
Axel Polleres: AndyS suggested a phased approach in the mail. ←
14:51:31 <iv_an_ru> A side note: what I like in current SPARUL is that it constructs all items to delete and or insert before starting changes (say, by making temporary dictionaries).
Ivan Mikhailov: A side note: what I like in current SPARUL is that it constructs all items to delete and or insert before starting changes (say, by making temporary dictionaries). ←
14:51:32 <iv_an_ru> At the same time, in many cases it can easily be optimized to insert or delete in a loop, as soon as next binding is found
Ivan Mikhailov: At the same time, in many cases it can easily be optimized to insert or delete in a loop, as soon as next binding is found ←
14:51:39 <LukeWM> s/the mail/a mail/
s/the mail/a mail/ ←
14:51:42 <kjetil> Zakim, mute me
Kjetil Kjernsmo: Zakim, mute me ←
14:51:42 <Zakim> kjetil should now be muted
Zakim IRC Bot: kjetil should now be muted ←
14:51:44 <SteveH> AndyS, yes, it's a bit messy with GRAPH present
Steve Harris: AndyS, yes, it's a bit messy with GRAPH present ←
14:51:51 <LukeWM> AxelPolleres2: The second thing is PUT, DELETE and POST - simpler
Axel Polleres: The second thing is PUT, DELETE and POST - simpler ←
14:52:07 <LukeWM> AxelPolleres2: It seemed that only the first use cases were covered, but not the others.
Axel Polleres: It seemed that only the first use cases were covered, but not the others. ←
14:52:30 <LukeWM> AndyS: It was a very large problem-space so we need to split it.
Andy Seaborne: It was a very large problem-space so we need to split it. ←
14:52:42 <SteveH> I'm not sure that starting with a single graph will actually be simpler
Steve Harris: I'm not sure that starting with a single graph will actually be simpler ←
14:52:47 <LukeWM> AndyS: we don't want to not do the whole thing, we just need to get some focus
Andy Seaborne: we don't want to not do the whole thing, we just need to get some focus ←
14:53:04 <LukeWM> AxelPolleres2: So the 1st phase wouldn't cover all the use cases
Axel Polleres: So the 1st phase wouldn't cover all the use cases ←
14:53:20 <iv_an_ru> SteveH, +1
Ivan Mikhailov: SteveH, +1 ←
14:53:28 <LukeWM> AndyS: not Alex's, certainly, because we'd have to load data into a graph store with a particular name
Andy Seaborne: not Alex's, certainly, because we'd have to load data into a graph store with a particular name ←
14:53:38 <LukeWM> AndyS: how big a chunk of work to we bite off?
Andy Seaborne: how big a chunk of work to we bite off? ←
14:53:55 <SteveH> I would got for PUT, POST first
Steve Harris: I would got for PUT, POST first ←
14:54:08 <LukeWM> AxelPolleres2: I want to get a sense of whether we do a 2 phased approach or not
Axel Polleres: I want to get a sense of whether we do a 2 phased approach or not ←
14:54:17 <AlexPassant> would like LOAD (or some feature with a similar behavior) to be in the first phase
Alex Passant: would like LOAD (or some feature with a similar behavior) to be in the first phase ←
14:54:20 <LukeWM> ericP: all my use cases are for UPDATE on the graph store
Eric Prud'hommeaux: all my use cases are for UPDATE on the graph store ←
14:54:30 <LukeWM> AndyS: whole graph operations? Is that what you mean?
Andy Seaborne: whole graph operations? Is that what you mean? ←
14:54:32 <LeeF> I'm less interested in PUT, POST then in a mutation language, personally, but somewhat low priority personally for me as well
Lee Feigenbaum: I'm less interested in PUT, POST then in a mutation language, personally, but somewhat low priority personally for me as well ←
14:54:52 <LukeWM> ericP: I can't answer until next week. I need to get my head around how awkward things are.
Eric Prud'hommeaux: I can't answer until next week. I need to get my head around how awkward things are. ←
14:54:52 <SteveH> With CONSTRUCT and PUT you can do a lot
Steve Harris: With CONSTRUCT and PUT you can do a lot ←
14:55:01 <SteveH> abeit inefficiently
Steve Harris: abeit inefficiently ←
14:55:12 <AndyS> PUT? That's replace?
Andy Seaborne: PUT? That's replace? ←
14:55:15 <SteveH> yes
Steve Harris: yes ←
14:55:21 <AndyS> ack
Andy Seaborne: ack ←
14:55:23 <LukeWM> LeeF: I'm (personally) more interested in doing everything, like using patterns etc, rather than RESTful stuff
Lee Feigenbaum: I'm (personally) more interested in doing everything, like using patterns etc, rather than RESTful stuff ←
14:55:41 <iv_an_ru> I'd say, LOAD is especially useful when one may selectively DELETE the garbage from the LOADed mess.
Ivan Mikhailov: I'd say, LOAD is especially useful when one may selectively DELETE the garbage from the LOADed mess. ←
14:55:46 <LeeF> SteveH, I hadn't considered that - is there an example of that anywhere?
Lee Feigenbaum: SteveH, I hadn't considered that - is there an example of that anywhere? ←
14:56:04 <kjetil> q+
Kjetil Kjernsmo: q+ ←
14:56:14 <AndyS> q-
Andy Seaborne: q- ←
14:56:36 <LukeWM> SteveH: if we have PUT, which in HTTP is a replace operation and CONSTRUCT, we can do a lot of modifications.
Steve Harris: if we have PUT, which in HTTP is a replace operation and CONSTRUCT, we can do a lot of modifications. ←
14:56:42 <LukeWM> AxelPolleres2: PUT was replacing
Axel Polleres: PUT was replacing ←
14:56:52 <LukeWM> SteveH: according to HTTP standard, yes
Steve Harris: according to HTTP standard, yes ←
14:56:54 <pgearon> +q
Paul Gearon: +q ←
14:57:02 <AndyS> so the division is changes of a graph and changes of a graph store (whole graph)
Andy Seaborne: so the division is changes of a graph and changes of a graph store (whole graph) ←
14:57:05 <AndyS> ??
Andy Seaborne: ?? ←
14:57:08 <LukeWM> SteveH: POST is additive
Steve Harris: POST is additive ←
14:57:15 <AxelPolleres2> q?
Axel Polleres: q? ←
14:57:26 <LukeWM> SteveH: not trying to replace INSERT DELETE
Steve Harris: not trying to replace INSERT DELETE ←
14:57:27 <kjetil> ack me
Kjetil Kjernsmo: ack me ←
14:57:48 <LeeF> Wonders if someone understands this enough to summarize the options in email?
Lee Feigenbaum: Wonders if someone understands this enough to summarize the options in email? ←
14:57:48 <LukeWM> kjetil: main problem is we'd have to have an HTTP server and we don't have that
Kjetil Kjernsmo: main problem is we'd have to have an HTTP server and we don't have that ←
14:58:18 <LukeWM> kjetil: WHERE clause is mandatory
Kjetil Kjernsmo: WHERE clause is mandatory ←
14:58:35 <SteveH> +1 to deffering WHERE
Steve Harris: +1 to deffering WHERE ←
14:58:40 <LukeWM> kjetil: DELETE WHERE is mandatory but not INSERT WHERE
Kjetil Kjernsmo: DELETE WHERE is mandatory but not INSERT WHERE ←
14:59:04 <LukeWM> pgearon: I liked the semantics of HTTP put but
Paul Gearon: I liked the semantics of HTTP put but ←
14:59:14 <AndyS> WHERE is in INSERT and DELETE : not in INSERT DATA and DELETE DATA.
Andy Seaborne: WHERE is in INSERT and DELETE : not in INSERT DATA and DELETE DATA. ←
14:59:34 <LukeWM> pgearon: it could be abused to just do a delete, which would be subverting the semantics
Paul Gearon: it could be abused to just do a delete, which would be subverting the semantics ←
14:59:46 <LukeWM> AxelPolleres2: This is a question of priority
Axel Polleres: This is a question of priority ←
15:00:17 <LeeF> +1 to AxelPolleres2 summarizing
Lee Feigenbaum: +1 to AxelPolleres2 summarizing ←
15:00:19 <LeeF> :)
Lee Feigenbaum: :) ←
15:00:29 <SteveH> q?
Steve Harris: q? ←
15:00:30 <kjetil> Zakim, mute me
Kjetil Kjernsmo: Zakim, mute me ←
15:00:30 <Zakim> kjetil should now be muted
Zakim IRC Bot: kjetil should now be muted ←
15:00:31 <ericP> q+ to make sure i understand where SPARUL sits
Eric Prud'hommeaux: q+ to make sure i understand where SPARUL sits ←
15:00:38 <LukeWM> AxelPolleres2: Let me try to summarize this, and continue with further discussion later
Axel Polleres: Let me try to summarize this, and continue with further discussion later ←
15:00:45 <AxelPolleres2> ACTION: Axel to summarize priorization issues on update
ACTION: Axel to summarize priorization issues on update ←
15:00:45 <trackbot> Created ACTION-33 - Summarize priorization issues on update [on Axel Polleres - due 2009-06-02].
Trackbot IRC Bot: Created ACTION-33 - Summarize priorization issues on update [on Axel Polleres - due 2009-06-02]. ←
15:00:50 <LukeWM> AxelPolleres2: anyone else want a closing word on this?
Axel Polleres: anyone else want a closing word on this? ←
15:01:07 <iv_an_ru> When I wrote spec for "my" SPARUL, I did not know that Andy had written similar thing right at the same time. And the only difference between two independently written spec was INSERT IN vs. INSERT INTO spelling. That resembles King Jame's Bible, so that's word of truth ;)
Ivan Mikhailov: When I wrote spec for "my" SPARUL, I did not know that Andy had written similar thing right at the same time. And the only difference between two independently written spec was INSERT IN vs. INSERT INTO spelling. That resembles King Jame's Bible, so that's word of truth ;) ←
15:01:12 <AndyS> ack pgearon
Andy Seaborne: ack pgearon ←
15:01:20 <ericP> ack me
Eric Prud'hommeaux: ack me ←
15:01:26 <Zakim> ericP, you wanted to make sure i understand where SPARUL sits
Zakim IRC Bot: ericP, you wanted to make sure i understand where SPARUL sits ←
15:01:35 <LukeWM> AxelPolleres2: What I got out was this: do we have additive, editing and replacing for insert
Axel Polleres: What I got out was this: do we have additive, editing and replacing for insert ←
15:01:53 <Zakim> -kjetil
Zakim IRC Bot: -kjetil ←
15:02:03 <LukeWM> AxelPolleres2: I understand SPARUL as everything, but protocol level stuff is a subset
Axel Polleres: I understand SPARUL as everything, but protocol level stuff is a subset ←
15:02:25 <LukeWM> AxelPolleres2: do we want just protocol or protocol+language
Axel Polleres: do we want just protocol or protocol+language ←
15:02:27 <AndyS> Submission did not cover protocol - no common agreement
Andy Seaborne: Submission did not cover protocol - no common agreement ←
15:02:47 <AndyS> or just language.
Andy Seaborne: or just language. ←
15:02:47 <SteveH> +1 PUT and DELETE is not enough
Steve Harris: +1 PUT and DELETE is not enough ←
15:02:53 <pgearon> +1 on update language
Paul Gearon: +1 on update language ←
15:02:59 <SteveH> but standardising it would be good, given that it's common
Steve Harris: but standardising it would be good, given that it's common ←
15:03:03 <Zakim> -iv_an_ru
Zakim IRC Bot: -iv_an_ru ←
15:03:18 <LukeWM> ericP: there is still demand for an update language - people will ask for it if we just give then PUT and DELETE
Eric Prud'hommeaux: there is still demand for an update language - people will ask for it if we just give then PUT and DELETE ←
15:03:31 <iv_an_ru> (ups, somtehing wrong with phone)
Ivan Mikhailov: (ups, somtehing wrong with phone) ←
15:03:42 <LukeWM> AxelPolleres2: does anyone want just PUT and DELETE?
Axel Polleres: does anyone want just PUT and DELETE? ←
15:03:56 <AxelPolleres2> Conclusions of today:
Axel Polleres: Conclusions of today: ←
15:04:06 <AxelPolleres2> 1) more than PUT DELETE needed
Axel Polleres: 1) more than PUT DELETE needed ←
15:04:18 <LukeWM> AxelPolleres2: should we have both?
Axel Polleres: should we have both? ←
15:04:26 <LukeWM> SteveH: I think we need both.
Steve Harris: I think we need both. ←
15:04:32 <AxelPolleres2> 2) sitll writing down PUT DELETE would be nice (?)
Axel Polleres: 2) sitll writing down PUT DELETE would be nice (?) ←
15:04:46 <LukeWM> ericP: Doesn't it just fall out of HTTP?
Eric Prud'hommeaux: Doesn't it just fall out of HTTP? ←
15:05:05 <LukeWM> SteveH: so many people already implement it, it would be a shame not to have it.
Steve Harris: so many people already implement it, it would be a shame not to have it. ←
15:05:17 <SimonS> +1 to AxelsPolleres2's 2)
Simon Schenk: +1 to AxelsPolleres2's 2) ←
15:05:22 <LukeWM> AxelPolleres2: lets get this to a mail discussion
Axel Polleres: lets get this to a mail discussion ←
15:05:46 <LukeWM> ericP: Steve, we'll do this on the phone later and then have a mail discussion.
Eric Prud'hommeaux: Steve, we'll do this on the phone later and then have a mail discussion. ←
15:06:09 <LukeWM> AxelPolleres2: lets adjourn
Axel Polleres: lets adjourn ←
Formatted by CommonScribe
This revision (#1) generated 2009-05-29 02:23:24 UTC by 'lfeigenb', comments: 'cleaned up minutes, thanks to Luke for scribing'