SPARQL Working Group Teleconference

Minutes of 26 May 2009

Agenda
http://www.w3.org/2009/sparql/wiki/Agenda-2009-05-26
Present
Lee Feigenbaum, Axel Polleres, Eric Prud'hommeaux, Ivan Herman, Andy Seaborne, Ivan Mikhailov, Greg Williams, Alex Passant, Kjetil Kjernsmo, Simon Schenk, John Clark, Steve Harris, Luke Wilson-Mawer, Bijan Parsia, Paul Gearon, Prateek Jain
Chair
Axel Polleres
Scribe
Luke Wilson-Mawer
IRC Log
Original and Editable Wiki Version
Resolutions
  1. Approve minutes at http://www.w3.org/2009/sparql/meeting/2009-05-19 link
  2. 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 link
  3. plan A is to meet two days at TPAC, though plan A is at risk link
Topics
<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

1. 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

2. 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?

3. 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

4. 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'