<LeeF> Present: Lee, ivanh, iv_an_ru, bglimm, chimezie, Kjetil, AxelPolleres, Andy, Steve, LukeWM, kasei, pgearon, SimonKJ, Prateek, John-l
13:57:25 <trackbot> Meeting: SPARQL Working Group Teleconference
13:57:25 <trackbot> Date: 23 June 2009
Trackbot IRC Bot: Date: 23 June 2009 ←
13:57:43 <LeeF> Chair: AxelPolleres
13:57:58 <LeeF> Agenda: http://www.w3.org/2009/sparql/wiki/Agenda-2009-06-23
14:03:42 <LeeF> Scribenick: john-l
(No events recorded for 6 minutes)
(Scribe set to John Clark)
<LeeF> topic: Introductions
14:03:38 <john-l> SimonKJ: I'm the primary IBM representative.
Simon Johnston: I'm the primary IBM representative. ←
14:04:06 <john-l> ... I've been working in the Rational group, on a new RDF-based platform, for 4 years.
... I've been working in the Rational group, on a new RDF-based platform, for 4 years. ←
14:04:42 <john-l> ... We rely heavily on SPARQL, and are very interested in standardizing useful new features as a result.
... We rely heavily on SPARQL, and are very interested in standardizing useful new features as a result. ←
14:05:07 <john-l> ... We are primarily interested in aggregates, and in updates (in the longer term).
... We are primarily interested in aggregates, and in updates (in the longer term). ←
<LeeF> topic: Admin
14:07:05 <AxelPolleres> http://www.w3.org/2009/sparql/meeting/2009-06-16
Axel Polleres: http://www.w3.org/2009/sparql/meeting/2009-06-16 ←
14:07:33 <LeeF> RESOLVED: Accept last week's minutes at http://www.w3.org/2009/sparql/meeting/2009-06-16
RESOLVED: Accept last week's minutes at http://www.w3.org/2009/sparql/meeting/2009-06-16 ←
14:07:54 <ivanh> regrets for next week, will be at a Dagstuhl workshop
Ivan Herman: regrets for next week, will be at a Dagstuhl workshop ←
14:08:09 <john-l> LeeF: Kjetil can probably scribe next week.
Lee Feigenbaum: Kjetil can probably scribe next week. ←
14:08:25 <john-l> AxelPolleres: Anything new with our liasons?
Axel Polleres: Anything new with our liasons? ←
14:08:27 <ivanh> q+
Ivan Herman: q+ ←
14:08:42 <AxelPolleres> ack ivanh
Axel Polleres: ack ivanh ←
14:08:48 <john-l> ivanh: OWL 2 is now in CR.
Ivan Herman: OWL 2 is now in CR. ←
14:09:13 <john-l> LeeF: That includes rdf:text?
Lee Feigenbaum: That includes rdf:text? ←
14:09:16 <john-l> ivanh: Yes.
Ivan Herman: Yes. ←
14:09:19 <bglimm> rdf:text is now rdf:PlainLiteral in OWL 2
Birte Glimm: rdf:text is now rdf:PlainLiteral in OWL 2 ←
14:09:38 <LeeF> thanks, bglimm, i couldn't remember what the new name was :)
Lee Feigenbaum: thanks, bglimm, i couldn't remember what the new name was :) ←
14:10:04 <john-l> Ivanh: We now have a chair for the RDB2RDF WG.
Ivan Herman: We now have a chair for the RDB2RDF WG. ←
<LeeF> topic: Actions
14:10:57 <AxelPolleres> http://www.w3.org/2009/sparql/track/actions/open
Axel Polleres: http://www.w3.org/2009/sparql/track/actions/open ←
14:11:18 <john-l> AxelPolleres: Can we close any of these actions?
Axel Polleres: Can we close any of these actions? ←
14:11:45 <john-l> LeeF: I need to swap back in to work on action 16.
Lee Feigenbaum: I need to swap back in to work on ACTION-16. ←
14:13:32 <LeeF> trackbot, close ACTION-42
Lee Feigenbaum: trackbot, close ACTION-42 ←
14:13:32 <trackbot> ACTION-42 Ask team contacts whether http://www.w3.org/TR/sparql-features/ is ok closed
Trackbot IRC Bot: ACTION-42 Ask team contacts whether http://www.w3.org/TR/sparql-features/ is ok closed ←
14:14:30 <LeeF> ACTION-44: see http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-dawg/2009AprJun/0392.html
Lee Feigenbaum: ACTION-44: see http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-dawg/2009AprJun/0392.html ←
14:14:30 <trackbot> ACTION-44 Mail NOT EXISTS example. notes added
Trackbot IRC Bot: ACTION-44 Mail NOT EXISTS example. notes added ←
14:14:37 <LeeF> trackbot, close ACTION-44
Lee Feigenbaum: trackbot, close ACTION-44 ←
14:14:37 <trackbot> ACTION-44 Mail NOT EXISTS example. closed
Trackbot IRC Bot: ACTION-44 Mail NOT EXISTS example. closed ←
14:14:46 <SteveH_> I would like to consider action 40 closed!
Steve Harris: I would like to consider ACTION-40 closed! ←
<LeeF> topic: F&R document
14:15:07 <john-l> AxelPolleres: We had two F&R questions: first, the short name for the document.
Axel Polleres: We had two F&R questions: first, the short name for the document. ←
14:15:40 <john-l> ivanh: We need to ask the domain admin for a green light on the desired short name.
Ivan Herman: We need to ask the domain admin for a green light on the desired short name. ←
14:16:32 <john-l> The group discusses whether we need SPARQL versioning in the short name.
The group discusses whether we need SPARQL versioning in the short name. ←
14:16:58 <LeeF> http://www.w3.org/2009/sparql/meeting/2009-06-16#resolution_2
Lee Feigenbaum: http://www.w3.org/2009/sparql/meeting/2009-06-16#resolution_2 ←
14:17:40 <LeeF> ACTION: Herman to request sparql-features as short name from Thomas R
ACTION: Herman to request sparql-features as short name from Thomas R ←
14:17:40 <trackbot> Created ACTION-48 - Request sparql-features as short name from Thomas R [on ivanh Herman - due 2009-06-30].
Trackbot IRC Bot: Created ACTION-48 - Request sparql-features as short name from Thomas R [on ivanh Herman - due 2009-06-30]. ←
14:18:58 <Zakim> +Chimezie_Ogbuji
Zakim IRC Bot: +Chimezie_Ogbuji ←
14:19:33 <john-l> chimezie: I haven't been able to review the F&R yet.
Chime Ogbuji: I haven't been able to review the F&R yet. ←
14:20:03 <john-l> AxelPolleres: I think the remaining issues with the F&R document are small.
Axel Polleres: I think the remaining issues with the F&R document are small. ←
14:20:11 <AxelPolleres> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-dawg/2009AprJun/0400.html
Axel Polleres: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-dawg/2009AprJun/0400.html ←
14:20:47 <SteveH_> q+ to talk about very confusing CONSTRUCT example in subselect section
Steve Harris: q+ to talk about very confusing CONSTRUCT example in subselect section ←
14:21:20 <john-l> SteveH_: The CONSTRUCT example is not germane and confusing.
Steve Harris: The CONSTRUCT example is not germane and confusing. ←
14:21:26 <AndyS> We agreed not to use it last week didn't we?
Andy Seaborne: We agreed not to use it last week didn't we? ←
14:21:33 <SteveH_> I thought so
Steve Harris: I thought so ←
14:21:57 <SteveH_> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-dawg/2009AprJun/0398.html 2.4.3
Steve Harris: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-dawg/2009AprJun/0398.html 2.4.3 ←
14:22:18 <john-l> SteveH_: In section 2.4.3.
Steve Harris: In section 2.4.3. ←
14:22:35 <john-l> LeeF: I also agree with striking that example.
Lee Feigenbaum: I also agree with striking that example. ←
14:22:39 <Zakim> -iv_an_ru
Zakim IRC Bot: -iv_an_ru ←
14:22:43 <AxelPolleres> alternatively, analogously to the SELECT example from before, we can use a subquery with project expressions for this query
Axel Polleres: alternatively, analogously to the SELECT example from before, we can use a subquery with project expressions for this query ←
14:22:45 <iv_an_ru> (oops)
Ivan Mikhailov: (oops) ←
14:23:08 <SteveH_> http://www.w3.org/2009/sparql/docs/features/#Project_expressions_syntax
Steve Harris: http://www.w3.org/2009/sparql/docs/features/#Project_expressions_syntax ←
14:23:32 <SteveH_> suggestion is to remove first CONSTRUCT example
Steve Harris: suggestion is to remove first CONSTRUCT example ←
14:23:49 <john-l> LeeF: I think including it in the document at this point goes too far.
Lee Feigenbaum: I think including it in the document at this point goes too far. ←
14:23:58 <AxelPolleres> PROPOSED: remove all below "To return an RDF graph..." in section 2.4.3
PROPOSED: remove all below "To return an RDF graph..." in section 2.4.3 ←
14:24:29 <AndyS> Remove just example "CONSTRUCT { ?x foaf:name { fn:string-join(?gn, " ", ?sn) } }
Andy Seaborne: Remove just example "CONSTRUCT { ?x foaf:name { fn:string-join(?gn, " ", ?sn) } } ←
14:24:29 <AndyS> "
Andy Seaborne: " ←
14:25:48 <iv_an_ru> I don't like syntax of CONSTRUCT { ?x foaf:name { fn:string-join(?gn, " ", ?sn) } } but I'd keep it.
Ivan Mikhailov: I don't like syntax of CONSTRUCT { ?x foaf:name { fn:string-join(?gn, " ", ?sn) } } but I'd keep it. ←
14:26:25 <iv_an_ru> (we have CONSTRUCT { ?x foaf:name ` fn:string-join(?gn, " ", ?sn) ` } , maybe not the best variant too)
Ivan Mikhailov: (we have CONSTRUCT { ?x foaf:name ` fn:string-join(?gn, " ", ?sn) ` } , maybe not the best variant too) ←
14:26:27 <john-l> AxelPolleres: We need to remove the offending example and tweak the words to match.
Axel Polleres: We need to remove the offending example and tweak the words to match. ←
14:26:45 <SteveH_> "To return an RDF graph where the first and family names are concatenated to a full name such project expressions could be used"
Steve Harris: "To return an RDF graph where the first and family names are concatenated to a full name such project expressions could be used" ←
14:26:49 <SteveH_> suggestion ^
Steve Harris: suggestion ^ ←
14:27:27 <john-l> AxelPolleres: Any objections?
Axel Polleres: Any objections? ←
14:27:53 <AxelPolleres> PROPOSED: reword to "To return an RDF graph where the first and family names are concatenated to a full name such project expressions could be used" and remove first CONSTRUCT example in 2.4.3
PROPOSED: reword to "To return an RDF graph where the first and family names are concatenated to a full name such project expressions could be used" and remove first CONSTRUCT example in 2.4.3 ←
14:28:07 <AxelPolleres> RESOLVED: reword to "To return an RDF graph where the first and family names are concatenated to a full name such project expressions could be used" and remove first CONSTRUCT example in 2.4.3
RESOLVED: reword to "To return an RDF graph where the first and family names are concatenated to a full name such project expressions could be used" and remove first CONSTRUCT example in 2.4.3 ←
14:28:19 <AndyS> It is "advice to the editors" isn't it?
Andy Seaborne: It is "advice to the editors" isn't it? ←
14:28:29 <SteveH_> yes
Steve Harris: yes ←
14:28:57 <john-l> AxelPolleres: We've already taken care of 1 and 2 from the 8 points.
Axel Polleres: We've already taken care of 1 and 2 from the 8 points. ←
14:29:33 <AxelPolleres> http://esw.w3.org/topic/SPARQL/Extensions/Aggregates
Axel Polleres: http://esw.w3.org/topic/SPARQL/Extensions/Aggregates ←
14:29:49 <AndyS> http://www.w3.org/2009/sparql/wiki/Feature:AggregateFunctions#Existing_Implementation.28s.29
Andy Seaborne: http://www.w3.org/2009/sparql/wiki/Feature:AggregateFunctions#Existing_Implementation.28s.29 ←
14:30:03 <john-l> AxelPolleres: We should take the list of implementors of aggregate expressions from the ESW wiki.
Axel Polleres: We should take the list of implementors of aggregate expressions from the ESW wiki. ←
14:30:24 <AxelPolleres> http://www.w3.org/2009/sparql/wiki/Feature:ProjectExpressions#Existing_Implementation.28s.29
Axel Polleres: http://www.w3.org/2009/sparql/wiki/Feature:ProjectExpressions#Existing_Implementation.28s.29 ←
14:30:48 <john-l> AxelPolleres: Take the existing lists from other pages and paste them into the document.
Axel Polleres: Take the existing lists from other pages and paste them into the document. ←
14:31:34 <AndyS> without the CONSTRUCT case (it's about being concise and focued on select expressions)
Andy Seaborne: without the CONSTRUCT case (it's about being concise and focued on select expressions) ←
14:31:35 <john-l> ivanh: What policy should we have for adding implementations? Should we try to be exhaustive?
Ivan Herman: What policy should we have for adding implementations? Should we try to be exhaustive? ←
14:31:54 <AxelPolleres> "The following non-exhaustive list includes some systems addressing this feature"
Axel Polleres: "The following non-exhaustive list includes some systems addressing this feature" ←
14:32:04 <ivanh> s/ivanh/Kjetil/
Ivan Herman: s/ivanh/Kjetil/ ←
14:32:26 <LeeF> I share some of Kjetil's concerns
Lee Feigenbaum: I share some of Kjetil's concerns ←
14:32:56 <SteveH> The document will be dated, I don't see the problem
Steve Harris: The document will be dated, I don't see the problem ←
14:33:04 <LeeF> Better to include implementations purely as examples, rather than try to make a comprehensive list
Lee Feigenbaum: Better to include implementations purely as examples, rather than try to make a comprehensive list ←
14:33:05 <AndyS> Not exhaustive - but the charter talsk about common extensions and experience which is relevant.
Andy Seaborne: Not exhaustive - but the charter talsk about common extensions and experience which is relevant. ←
14:33:13 <AndyS> +1 to LeeF
Andy Seaborne: +1 to LeeF ←
14:33:16 <iv_an_ru> No need to be exaustive, if we're in ;)
Ivan Mikhailov: No need to be exaustive, if we're in ;) ←
14:33:18 <SteveH> yes, not exhastive
Steve Harris: yes, not exhastive ←
14:33:26 <LeeF> what iv_an_ru says is exactly the problem :/
Lee Feigenbaum: what iv_an_ru says is exactly the problem :/ ←
14:33:34 <LeeF> this isn't an Implementation Report
Lee Feigenbaum: this isn't an Implementation Report ←
14:34:14 <iv_an_ru> I'd choose two implementations per feature, using "similarity to the spec" as a criterion.
Ivan Mikhailov: I'd choose two implementations per feature, using "similarity to the spec" as a criterion. ←
14:34:19 <john-l> AxelPolleres: Would anyone object to having a non-exhaustive implementation list?
Axel Polleres: Would anyone object to having a non-exhaustive implementation list? ←
14:34:54 <SteveH> iv_an_ru: there is no spec at this point
Ivan Mikhailov: there is no spec at this point [ Scribe Assist by Steve Harris ] ←
14:34:58 <john-l> KjetilK: I object; I'm concerned about the persistence of the URIs.
Kjetil Kjernsmo: I object; I'm concerned about the persistence of the URIs. ←
14:35:29 <ivanh> q+
Ivan Herman: q+ ←
14:35:33 <SteveH> q-
Steve Harris: q- ←
14:35:37 <AndyS> Yes
Andy Seaborne: Yes ←
14:35:41 <AndyS> q+
Andy Seaborne: q+ ←
14:35:45 <iv_an_ru> well, what we've specified fo "approximate" syntax and semantics resembles a spec.
Ivan Mikhailov: well, what we've specified fo "approximate" syntax and semantics resembles a spec. ←
14:35:47 <pgearon> I'd like to see the list left
Paul Gearon: I'd like to see the list left ←
14:35:48 <LeeF> q- SteveH_
Lee Feigenbaum: q- SteveH_ ←
14:36:45 <AxelPolleres> "The following non-exhaustive list includes some systems addressing this feature at the date of publication of the present document"
Axel Polleres: "The following non-exhaustive list includes some systems addressing this feature at the date of publication of the present document" ←
14:36:49 <john-l> ivanh: The text needs to make it clear that the implementation list could rapidly become out-of-date.
Ivan Herman: The text needs to make it clear that the implementation list could rapidly become out-of-date. ←
14:37:16 <john-l> ... Also, it needs to emphasize that an up-to-date list *is* maintained on the Wiki.
... Also, it needs to emphasize that an up-to-date list *is* maintained on the Wiki. ←
14:38:05 <SteveH> I don't feel that the document stands on it's own sufficiently if it requires liks to the WG wiki
Steve Harris: I don't feel that the document stands on it's own sufficiently if it requires liks to the WG wiki ←
14:38:11 <SteveH> to justify itsself
Steve Harris: to justify itsself ←
14:38:14 <LeeF> Link to which wiki? ESW presumably since it outlives the WG wiki?
Lee Feigenbaum: Link to which wiki? ESW presumably since it outlives the WG wiki? ←
14:38:17 <SteveH> +1
Steve Harris: +1 ←
14:38:38 <iv_an_ru> +1 for ESW
Ivan Mikhailov: +1 for ESW ←
14:38:54 <SteveH> +1, I also think the docs lifetime is similar to the WGs
Steve Harris: +1, I also think the docs lifetime is similar to the WGs ←
14:38:55 <john-l> AndyS: I think the F&R doc only has a limited span of usefulness, so I don't worry about the deep future so much.
Andy Seaborne: I think the F&R doc only has a limited span of usefulness, so I don't worry about the deep future so much. ←
14:39:11 <LukeWM> q+
Luke Wilson-Mawer: q+ ←
14:39:33 <john-l> AndyS: I would put the links in.
Andy Seaborne: I would put the links in. ←
14:39:44 <SimonKJ> +1
Simon Johnston: +1 ←
14:39:44 <LukeWM> ack me
Luke Wilson-Mawer: ack me ←
14:39:52 <AndyS> We are required to have: "shown to exist in multiple, interoperable implementations" so useful info towards that
Andy Seaborne: We are required to have: "shown to exist in multiple, interoperable implementations" so useful info towards that ←
14:39:53 <ivanh> ack ivanh
Ivan Herman: ack ivanh ←
14:39:55 <AndyS> ack me
Andy Seaborne: ack me ←
14:40:12 <SimonKJ> q+
Simon Johnston: q+ ←
14:40:46 <john-l> LukeWM: Do we still need complex use-cases, with more than one feature, for the F&R?
Luke Wilson-Mawer: Do we still need complex use-cases, with more than one feature, for the F&R? ←
14:40:53 <LukeWM> http://www.w3.org/2009/sparql/wiki/FRUseCases
Luke Wilson-Mawer: http://www.w3.org/2009/sparql/wiki/FRUseCases ←
14:41:47 <LeeF> Pretty sure it wasn't me requesting them :-D
Lee Feigenbaum: Pretty sure it wasn't me requesting them :-D ←
14:42:01 <john-l> AxelPolleres: Is there any objection to going to FPWD without the list of complex use-cases?
Axel Polleres: Is there any objection to going to FPWD without the list of complex use-cases? ←
14:42:08 <LukeWM> sorry LeeF, you're right, it wasn't
Luke Wilson-Mawer: sorry LeeF, you're right, it wasn't ←
14:42:13 <AxelPolleres> Consensus is not to add complex use cases before publishing FPWD
Axel Polleres: Consensus is not to add complex use cases before publishing FPWD ←
14:42:23 <pgearon> +1
Paul Gearon: +1 ←
14:44:46 <john-l> AxelPolleres: We discussed the modeling of UNSAID without an actual negation feature in SPARQL 1.0 on the mailing list.
Axel Polleres: We discussed the modeling of UNSAID without an actual negation feature in SPARQL 1.0 on the mailing list. ←
14:45:09 <john-l> SteveH: I think we can continue with the feature described as is.
Steve Harris: I think we can continue with the feature described as is. ←
14:45:31 <AxelPolleres> 4) in my mail, doesn't need a todo.
Axel Polleres: 4) in my mail, doesn't need a todo. ←
14:46:31 <john-l> AxelPolleres: #5 is just a typo.
Axel Polleres: #5 is just a typo. ←
14:48:19 <john-l> SteveH: Adding the TODO to address #6 is fine.
Steve Harris: Adding the TODO to address #6 is fine. ←
14:50:04 <john-l> AxelPolleres: I suggest no changes to the doc in response to #7.
Axel Polleres: I suggest no changes to the doc in response to #7. ←
14:50:20 <SimonKJ> q+
Simon Johnston: q+ ←
14:50:52 <LeeF> ack SimonKJ
Lee Feigenbaum: ack SimonKJ ←
14:51:07 <john-l> SimonKJ: We also support a protocol update, and I'll try to dig out a reference.
Simon Johnston: We also support a protocol update, and I'll try to dig out a reference. ←
14:51:24 <SimonKJ> IBM's Jazz Foundation supports graph update via a RESTful protocol
Simon Johnston: IBM's Jazz Foundation supports graph update via a RESTful protocol ←
14:51:30 <SimonKJ> I'll try and find a persistent reference
Simon Johnston: I'll try and find a persistent reference ←
14:51:54 <john-l> AxelPolleres: I suggest adding references to these existing implementations to the list for emphasis.
Axel Polleres: I suggest adding references to these existing implementations to the list for emphasis. ←
14:52:24 <john-l> AxelPolleres: Is there anything else that would prevent going to FPWD?
Axel Polleres: Is there anything else that would prevent going to FPWD? ←
14:52:36 <SteveH> +1
Steve Harris: +1 ←
14:52:48 <SteveH> ..to ivanh
Steve Harris: ..to ivanh ←
14:52:57 <john-l> ivanh: I think we should make all the above changes and then make a decision.
Ivan Herman: I think we should make all the above changes and then make a decision. ←
14:52:58 <LeeF> too many changes to do conditionally, I thi nk
Lee Feigenbaum: too many changes to do conditionally, I thi nk ←
14:53:03 <LeeF> s/thi nk/think
Lee Feigenbaum: s/thi nk/think ←
14:53:07 <pgearon> I agree with ivanh
Paul Gearon: I agree with ivanh ←
14:53:59 <AndyS> It's FPWD - can be a bit rough. Early is good. "It's agree to publish" not "agree with every detail"
Andy Seaborne: It's FPWD - can be a bit rough. Early is good. "It's agree to publish" not "agree with every detail" ←
14:54:30 <john-l> LeeF: Let's make the changes, then at the beginning of the next meeting determine if there is any outstanding hesitation.
Lee Feigenbaum: Let's make the changes, then at the beginning of the next meeting determine if there is any outstanding hesitation. ←
14:54:38 <john-l> AxelPolleres: It'll also be good to have outstanding reviews completed.
Axel Polleres: It'll also be good to have outstanding reviews completed. ←
14:54:38 <AndyS> q+
Andy Seaborne: q+ ←
14:54:45 <LeeF> ack AndyS
Lee Feigenbaum: ack AndyS ←
14:55:13 <SteveH> my action is still open too, for some reason http://www.w3.org/2009/sparql/track/actions/40
Steve Harris: my action is still open too, for some reason http://www.w3.org/2009/sparql/track/actions/40 ←
14:55:13 <john-l> AndyS: Make changes and have reviews?
Andy Seaborne: Make changes and have reviews? ←
14:55:30 <LeeF> trackbot, close ACTION-40
Lee Feigenbaum: trackbot, close ACTION-40 ←
14:55:30 <trackbot> ACTION-40 Review F&R document closed
Trackbot IRC Bot: ACTION-40 Review F&R document closed ←
14:55:37 <LeeF> SteveH, i don't know what you're talking about
Lee Feigenbaum: SteveH, i don't know what you're talking about ←
14:55:39 <LeeF> ;-)
Lee Feigenbaum: ;-) ←
14:55:48 <SteveH> LeeF, the human Zakim :)
Steve Harris: LeeF, the human Zakim :) ←
14:57:06 <john-l> Axel arranges for serializing the updates and the reviews.
Axel arranges for serializing the updates and the reviews. ←
14:58:22 <ivanh> q+
Ivan Herman: q+ ←
14:58:53 <john-l> ivanh: I need to finalize the charter for phase 2.
Ivan Herman: I need to finalize the charter for phase 2. ←
14:59:20 <john-l> ivanh: The charter should include every feature, including the time permitting features. They don't need detailed descriptions, though.
Ivan Herman: The charter should include every feature, including the time permitting features. They don't need detailed descriptions, though. ←
14:59:26 <AndyS> See section 1.1?
Andy Seaborne: See section 1.1? ←
14:59:29 <LeeF> http://www.w3.org/2009/sparql/docs/features/#Introduction_features
Lee Feigenbaum: http://www.w3.org/2009/sparql/docs/features/#Introduction_features ←
14:59:54 <LeeF> q+
Lee Feigenbaum: q+ ←
14:59:58 <LeeF> ack ivanh
Lee Feigenbaum: ack ivanh ←
15:00:14 <LeeF> q+ to hopefully resolve this easily
Lee Feigenbaum: q+ to hopefully resolve this easily ←
15:01:43 <john-l> LeeF: I will take an action to draft text for all of the time permitting features by Thursday.
Lee Feigenbaum: I will take an action to draft text for all of the time permitting features by Thursday. ←
15:02:01 <AxelPolleres> ACTION: LeeF to draft short descriptions for time-permitting features
ACTION: LeeF to draft short descriptions for time-permitting features ←
15:02:01 <trackbot> Created ACTION-49 - Draft short descriptions for time-permitting features [on Lee Feigenbaum - due 2009-06-30].
Trackbot IRC Bot: Created ACTION-49 - Draft short descriptions for time-permitting features [on Lee Feigenbaum - due 2009-06-30]. ←
15:02:55 <john-l> AxelPolleres: LeeF can try to hand off his work to KjetilK for his edits.
Axel Polleres: LeeF can try to hand off his work to KjetilK for his edits. ←
15:02:55 <john-l> AxelPolleres: Adjourned.
Axel Polleres: Adjourned. ←
Formatted by CommonScribe
This revision (#1) generated 2009-06-23 15:24:58 UTC by 'lfeigenb', comments: 'Minutes.\r\n\r\nThanks to John for scribing.'