<kasei> Present: Lee, kasei, AlexPassant, AndyS, SimonKJ, pgearon, SimonS, SteveH, LukeWM, bglimm, Prateek, chimezie
13:48:18 <trackbot> Meeting: SPARQL Working Group Teleconference
13:48:18 <trackbot> Date: 04 August 2009
13:48:22 <Zakim> ok, LeeF; I see SW_(SPARQL)10:00AM scheduled to start in 12 minutes
Zakim IRC Bot: ok, LeeF; I see SW_(SPARQL)10:00AM scheduled to start in 12 minutes ←
13:48:26 <LeeF> Chair: LeeF
13:48:35 <LeeF> Regrets: Axel, EricP, IvanH
13:48:50 <kasei> scribenick: kasei
(Scribe set to Greg Williams)
13:48:50 <LeeF> Agenda: http://www.w3.org/2009/sparql/wiki/Agenda-2009-08-04
13:56:30 <Zakim> SW_(SPARQL)10:00AM has now started
(No events recorded for 7 minutes)
Zakim IRC Bot: SW_(SPARQL)10:00AM has now started ←
14:03:59 <LeeF> topic: Admin
(No events recorded for 7 minutes)
14:04:07 <LeeF> PROPOSED: Approve minutes at http://www.w3.org/2009/sparql/meeting/2009-07-28
PROPOSED: Approve minutes at http://www.w3.org/2009/sparql/meeting/2009-07-28 ←
14:04:16 <LeeF> agenda - http://www.w3.org/2009/sparql/wiki/Agenda-2009-08-04
Lee Feigenbaum: agenda - http://www.w3.org/2009/sparql/wiki/Agenda-2009-08-04 ←
14:04:31 <bglimm> +1
Birte Glimm: +1 ←
14:04:42 <LeeF> RESOLVED: Approve minutes at http://www.w3.org/2009/sparql/meeting/2009-07-28
RESOLVED: Approve minutes at http://www.w3.org/2009/sparql/meeting/2009-07-28 ←
14:05:18 <LeeF> next mtg Aug-11 SimonS to scribe
Lee Feigenbaum: next mtg Aug-11 SimonS to scribe ←
14:05:27 <LeeF> http://www.w3.org/2009/sparql/wiki/Vacation_List
Lee Feigenbaum: http://www.w3.org/2009/sparql/wiki/Vacation_List ←
14:06:34 <kasei> topic: Liasons
14:07:02 <kasei> nothing to report
nothing to report ←
14:07:09 <LeeF> topic: TPAC face to face
14:07:33 <kasei> LeeF: reminder next face to face at TPAC
Lee Feigenbaum: reminder next face to face at TPAC ←
14:07:58 <kasei> LeeF: 2 day meeting
Lee Feigenbaum: 2 day meeting ←
14:08:40 <kasei> ... try to arrange virtual call as well
... try to arrange virtual call as well ←
14:08:47 <kasei> ... comments?
... comments? ←
14:09:10 <bglimm> I have to see what the travel budget says...
Birte Glimm: I have to see what the travel budget says... ←
14:09:12 <kasei> ... will ask on mailing list again who intends to go
... will ask on mailing list again who intends to go ←
14:09:07 <LeeF> topic: Actions
14:09:43 <LeeF> trackbot, close ACTION-55
Lee Feigenbaum: trackbot, close ACTION-55 ←
14:09:43 <trackbot> ACTION-55 Summarize ISSUE-32 closed
Trackbot IRC Bot: ACTION-55 Summarize ISSUE-32 closed ←
14:10:21 <LeeF> trackbot, close ACTION-64
Lee Feigenbaum: trackbot, close ACTION-64 ←
14:10:22 <trackbot> ACTION-64 Draft subqueries in template closed
Trackbot IRC Bot: ACTION-64 Draft subqueries in template closed ←
14:11:08 <kasei> AndyS: trying to work out more formal relationship between not exists and diff
Andy Seaborne: trying to work out more formal relationship between not exists and diff ←
14:11:30 <kasei> LeeF: will probably turn attention back to that in a few weeks.
Lee Feigenbaum: will probably turn attention back to that in a few weeks. ←
14:11:31 <LeeF> trackbot, close ACTION-67
Lee Feigenbaum: trackbot, close ACTION-67 ←
14:11:31 <trackbot> ACTION-67 Draft negation closed
Trackbot IRC Bot: ACTION-67 Draft negation closed ←
14:11:55 <kasei> chimezie: hope to have something on aggregates later this week
Chime Ogbuji: hope to have something on aggregates later this week ←
14:12:10 <kasei> LeeF: hope to have mailing list discussion and discuss aggregates next week
Lee Feigenbaum: hope to have mailing list discussion and discuss aggregates next week ←
14:12:22 <LeeF> trackbot, close ACTION-73
Lee Feigenbaum: trackbot, close ACTION-73 ←
14:12:22 <trackbot> ACTION-73 Kick of BGP entailment TF closed
Trackbot IRC Bot: ACTION-73 Kick of BGP entailment TF closed ←
14:12:31 <LeeF> trackbot, close ACTION-74
Lee Feigenbaum: trackbot, close ACTION-74 ←
14:12:31 <trackbot> ACTION-74 Kick off property paths TF closed
Trackbot IRC Bot: ACTION-74 Kick off property paths TF closed ←
14:13:10 <LeeF> trackbot, close ACTION-76
Lee Feigenbaum: trackbot, close ACTION-76 ←
14:13:11 <trackbot> ACTION-76 Kick off Basic Federated Query TF closed
Trackbot IRC Bot: ACTION-76 Kick off Basic Federated Query TF closed ←
14:13:25 <LeeF> topic: Document editors
14:13:26 <kasei> SimonS: sent email to kick off basic federated query TF
Simon Schenk: sent email to kick off basic federated query TF ←
14:13:54 <kasei> LeeF: asked for editors for sparql query and update documents.
Lee Feigenbaum: asked for editors for sparql query and update documents. ←
14:14:05 <kasei> ... AndyS and SteveH will serve as editors of query
... AndyS and SteveH will serve as editors of query ←
14:14:13 <kasei> ... pgearon and SimonS editors of update
... pgearon and SimonS editors of update ←
14:14:59 <kasei> AndyS: is update for protocol and language?
Andy Seaborne: is update for protocol and language? ←
14:15:07 <kasei> LeeF: not decided yet.
Lee Feigenbaum: not decided yet. ←
14:15:32 <kasei> AndyS: meant REST by "protocol"
Andy Seaborne: meant REST by "protocol" ←
14:15:42 <pgearon> I think that the update protocol will need its own document. I'm prepared to work on both
Paul Gearon: I think that the update protocol will need its own document. I'm prepared to work on both ←
14:16:58 <kasei> topic: Status of SPARQL/Query design template actions
14:17:12 <kasei> LeeF: any issues worth discussing now?
Lee Feigenbaum: any issues worth discussing now? ←
14:17:20 <LeeF> http://www.w3.org/2009/sparql/wiki/Design:SubSelect
Lee Feigenbaum: http://www.w3.org/2009/sparql/wiki/Design:SubSelect ←
14:17:29 <kasei> SteveH: syntax for allowing projected variable renaming
Steve Harris: syntax for allowing projected variable renaming ←
14:17:42 <kasei> ... need new syntax because existing syntax doesn't have room for it.
... need new syntax because existing syntax doesn't have room for it. ←
14:18:15 <kasei> ... expressing subselects in obvious way loses internal ordering
... expressing subselects in obvious way loses internal ordering ←
14:18:42 <kasei> ... according to current semantics, order isn't preseved in join.
... according to current semantics, order isn't preseved in join. ←
14:18:59 <kasei> ... lots of dependencies between project expressions and aggregates.
... lots of dependencies between project expressions and aggregates. ←
14:19:11 <kasei> LeeF: open issue whether we'll do other types of subqueries
Lee Feigenbaum: open issue whether we'll do other types of subqueries ←
14:19:59 <kasei> LeeF: summing up, syntax and ordering are issues.
Lee Feigenbaum: summing up, syntax and ordering are issues. ←
14:20:22 <kasei> AndyS: big change to existing implementations to address ordering
Andy Seaborne: big change to existing implementations to address ordering ←
14:20:57 <kasei> LeeF: have you had any feedback on ordering?
Lee Feigenbaum: have you had any feedback on ordering? ←
14:21:06 <kasei> AndyS: no, but use case for it.
Andy Seaborne: no, but use case for it. ←
14:21:30 <kasei> ... case for having ORDER BY in subquery
... case for having ORDER BY in subquery ←
14:21:46 <kasei> LeeF: need order by and limit to do limit by resource
Lee Feigenbaum: need order by and limit to do limit by resource ←
14:22:02 <kasei> AndyS: or "top blogger by number of comments"
Andy Seaborne: or "top blogger by number of comments" ←
14:22:40 <pgearon> no allergic reaction. I might sneeze :-)
Paul Gearon: no allergic reaction. I might sneeze :-) ←
14:22:44 <kasei> LeeF: does anybody find an ORDER BY in subquery with order disappering in outer query problematic?
Lee Feigenbaum: does anybody find an ORDER BY in subquery with order disappering in outer query problematic? ←
14:23:17 <kasei> LeeF: seems to be concensus on keeping ORDER BY in subquery but that order isn't preserved in merging results with main query
Lee Feigenbaum: seems to be concensus on keeping ORDER BY in subquery but that order isn't preserved in merging results with main query ←
14:23:32 <kasei> ... less inclined to move ahead on syntax right now.
... less inclined to move ahead on syntax right now. ←
14:23:47 <kasei> ... will note that it's an open issue.
... will note that it's an open issue. ←
14:24:00 <kasei> SteveH: from logical point of view, straightforward
Steve Harris: from logical point of view, straightforward ←
14:24:43 <LeeF> S,t,e,v,e H,a,r,r,i,s ?
Lee Feigenbaum: S,t,e,v,e H,a,r,r,i,s ? ←
14:24:54 <kasei> ... syntax is a bit off-scope, would like to see if concensus for ways to write rename.
... syntax is a bit off-scope, would like to see if concensus for ways to write rename. ←
14:25:02 <SteveH> E1: SELECT (?x+3 AS ?xp3) ?y WHERE ...
Steve Harris: E1: SELECT (?x+3 AS ?xp3) ?y WHERE ... ←
14:25:09 <SteveH> E2: SELECT (?x+3) AS ?xp3 ?y WHERE ...
Steve Harris: E2: SELECT (?x+3) AS ?xp3 ?y WHERE ... ←
14:25:16 <SteveH> E3: SELECT ?x+3 AS ?xp3, ?y WHERE ...
Steve Harris: E3: SELECT ?x+3 AS ?xp3, ?y WHERE ... ←
14:25:37 <kasei> LeeF: 3 ways to express selecting and projecting to a different name.
Lee Feigenbaum: 3 ways to express selecting and projecting to a different name. ←
14:25:58 <AndyS> I don't like adjacent, unseparated use of variables (the "SELECT (expr) as ?x ?y WHERE" case)
Andy Seaborne: I don't like adjacent, unseparated use of variables (the "SELECT (expr) as ?x ?y WHERE" case) ←
14:25:59 <kasei> ... using an AS keyword in parens, the whole thing in parens, or leaving off parens and adding commas between items.
... using an AS keyword in parens, the whole thing in parens, or leaving off parens and adding commas between items. ←
14:26:11 <kasei> AndyS++
AndyS++ ←
14:26:27 <kasei> SteveH: semantically equivalent, just some easier for humans
Steve Harris: semantically equivalent, just some easier for humans ←
14:26:40 <chimezie> E3 +1
Chime Ogbuji: E3 +1 ←
14:26:43 <kasei> LeeF: strawpoll
Lee Feigenbaum: strawpoll ←
14:26:48 <LeeF> poll on E1
Lee Feigenbaum: poll on E1 ←
14:26:52 <SteveH> +0
Steve Harris: +0 ←
14:26:55 <bglimm> +0
Birte Glimm: +0 ←
14:26:56 <LukeWM_> 0
14:26:57 <AndyS> +1 E1
Andy Seaborne: +1 E1 ←
14:26:58 <LeeF> +1
Lee Feigenbaum: +1 ←
14:26:59 <kasei> +1
+1 ←
14:27:00 <Prateek> +1
Prateek Jain: +1 ←
14:27:02 <pgearon> +1
Paul Gearon: +1 ←
14:27:02 <AlexPassant> +1
Alex Passant: +1 ←
14:27:05 <chimezie> 0
Chime Ogbuji: 0 ←
14:27:14 <LeeF> poll on E2
Lee Feigenbaum: poll on E2 ←
14:27:15 <SteveH> -1
Steve Harris: -1 ←
14:27:16 <LukeWM_> -1
Luke Wilson-Mawer: -1 ←
14:27:16 <AndyS> q+ to ask about E3
Andy Seaborne: q+ to ask about E3 ←
14:27:16 <AlexPassant> -1
Alex Passant: -1 ←
14:27:22 <LeeF> -1
Lee Feigenbaum: -1 ←
14:27:24 <chimezie> -1
Chime Ogbuji: -1 ←
14:27:24 <pgearon> -1
Paul Gearon: -1 ←
14:27:24 <bglimm> 0
Birte Glimm: 0 ←
14:27:26 <kasei> -1
-1 ←
14:27:28 <AndyS> -0.5 E2
Andy Seaborne: -0.5 E2 ←
14:27:29 <SimonS> 0
Simon Schenk: 0 ←
14:27:46 <LeeF> ack AndyS
Lee Feigenbaum: ack AndyS ←
14:27:46 <Zakim> AndyS, you wanted to ask about E3
Zakim IRC Bot: AndyS, you wanted to ask about E3 ←
14:28:00 <kasei> AndyS: is it a change that will affect existing queries (commas)?
Andy Seaborne: is it a change that will affect existing queries (commas)? ←
14:28:12 <pgearon> +q
Paul Gearon: +q ←
14:28:21 <kasei> SteveH: named projection would require commas. doesn't change existing queries.
Steve Harris: named projection would require commas. doesn't change existing queries. ←
14:29:07 <kasei> SteveH: want impressions on overall look and feel, not details
Steve Harris: want impressions on overall look and feel, not details ←
14:29:19 <LeeF> ack pgearon
Lee Feigenbaum: ack pgearon ←
14:30:01 <kasei> pgearon: if we're considering commas in variables in select clause, wouldn't examples 2 and 3 be similar?
Paul Gearon: if we're considering commas in variables in select clause, wouldn't examples 2 and 3 be similar? ←
14:30:22 <kasei> SteveH: E2 doesn't have commas
Steve Harris: E2 doesn't have commas ←
14:30:36 <kasei> pgearon: but if commas were optional and could be put in E2, ...
Paul Gearon: but if commas were optional and could be put in E2, ... ←
14:30:56 <kasei> SteveH: same as AndyS's question, if commas were necessary.
Steve Harris: same as AndyS's question, if commas were necessary. ←
14:30:58 <LeeF> poll on general feeling of E3
Lee Feigenbaum: poll on general feeling of E3 ←
14:31:00 <SteveH> +1
Steve Harris: +1 ←
14:31:01 <LukeWM_> 0
14:31:05 <chimezie> +1
Chime Ogbuji: +1 ←
14:31:05 <AlexPassant> +1 on E3
Alex Passant: +1 on E3 ←
14:31:08 <kasei> 0
0 ←
14:31:13 <AndyS> +0 E3
Andy Seaborne: +0 E3 ←
14:31:27 <LeeF> +1
Lee Feigenbaum: +1 ←
14:31:29 <SimonS> +1
Simon Schenk: +1 ←
14:31:36 <pgearon> +1 on E3, but would like a comma-free syntax to be possible as well
Paul Gearon: +1 on E3, but would like a comma-free syntax to be possible as well ←
14:31:41 <bglimm> 0
Birte Glimm: 0 ←
14:31:47 <Prateek> 0
Prateek Jain: 0 ←
14:32:11 <kasei> SteveH: based on strawpoll, will keep examples.
Steve Harris: based on strawpoll, will keep examples. ←
14:32:26 <kasei> LeeF: seems to be support for E1 and E3, but will look at reasons to do one or the other.
Lee Feigenbaum: seems to be support for E1 and E3, but will look at reasons to do one or the other. ←
14:32:39 <LeeF> topic: Update via SPARQL/Protocol
14:33:14 <kasei> LeeF: pgearon summarized issues in taking update query strings and using them over SPARQL Query protocol.
Lee Feigenbaum: pgearon summarized issues in taking update query strings and using them over SPARQL Query protocol. ←
14:33:18 <LeeF> paul's summary is http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-dawg/2009JulSep/0096.html
Lee Feigenbaum: paul's summary is http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-dawg/2009JulSep/0096.html ←
14:34:13 <kasei> ... take away: sparql update should be issued over HTTP POST only
... take away: sparql update should be issued over HTTP POST only ←
14:34:33 <kasei> ... consensus over that?
... consensus over that? ←
14:35:00 <kasei> pgearon: approached thinking update protocol would be similar to query protocol. not necessarily the case.
Paul Gearon: approached thinking update protocol would be similar to query protocol. not necessarily the case. ←
14:35:12 <kasei> ... various options: write an unrelated protocol
... various options: write an unrelated protocol ←
14:35:19 <kasei> ... would be nice to have a related protcol
... would be nice to have a related protcol ←
14:35:29 <kasei> ... build on what we already have
... build on what we already have ←
14:35:40 <kasei> ... option: all updates go through POST
... option: all updates go through POST ←
14:36:11 <kasei> ... PUT is supposed to add data to resource, DELETE deletes, POST is only method that is flexible enough
... PUT is supposed to add data to resource, DELETE deletes, POST is only method that is flexible enough ←
14:36:21 <kasei> ... query or update can be handled by specifying parameters
... query or update can be handled by specifying parameters ←
14:36:37 <LeeF> q+ to confirm that this works ok with a WSDL specification + HTTP bindings
Lee Feigenbaum: q+ to confirm that this works ok with a WSDL specification + HTTP bindings ←
14:36:39 <kasei> ... option: PUT and POST. subverts PUT.
... option: PUT and POST. subverts PUT. ←
14:36:58 <kasei> ... option: use different HTTP methods. requires parsing HTTP methods before intention is clear.
... option: use different HTTP methods. requires parsing HTTP methods before intention is clear. ←
14:37:33 <kasei> ... people seem to like option 2 (all updates through POST)
... people seem to like option 2 (all updates through POST) ←
14:38:17 <kasei> LeeF: if we did this, we could specify abstract WSDL interface, HTTP bindings, etc. correct?
Lee Feigenbaum: if we did this, we could specify abstract WSDL interface, HTTP bindings, etc. correct? ←
14:38:44 <AndyS> q+ to ask about WSDL and errors.
Andy Seaborne: q+ to ask about WSDL and errors. ←
14:39:12 <LeeF> ack LeeF
Lee Feigenbaum: ack LeeF ←
14:39:12 <Zakim> LeeF, you wanted to confirm that this works ok with a WSDL specification + HTTP bindings
Zakim IRC Bot: LeeF, you wanted to confirm that this works ok with a WSDL specification + HTTP bindings ←
14:39:14 <kasei> chimezie: yes.
Chime Ogbuji: yes. ←
14:39:17 <LeeF> ack AndyS
Lee Feigenbaum: ack AndyS ←
14:39:17 <Zakim> AndyS, you wanted to ask about WSDL and errors.
Zakim IRC Bot: AndyS, you wanted to ask about WSDL and errors. ←
14:39:46 <kasei> AndyS: issue from last time, WSDL is SOAP-centric. have to enumerate error codes.
Andy Seaborne: issue from last time, WSDL is SOAP-centric. have to enumerate error codes. ←
14:40:01 <kasei> ... does anyone know current state?
... does anyone know current state? ←
14:40:55 <LeeF> ISSUE: Can we use the correct meaning of the full slate of HTTP errors when specifying the update protocol via WSDL?
ISSUE: Can we use the correct meaning of the full slate of HTTP errors when specifying the update protocol via WSDL? ←
14:40:55 <trackbot> Created ISSUE-33 - Can we use the correct meaning of the full slate of HTTP errors when specifying the update protocol via WSDL? ; please complete additional details at http://www.w3.org/2009/sparql/track/issues/33/edit .
Trackbot IRC Bot: Created ISSUE-33 - Can we use the correct meaning of the full slate of HTTP errors when specifying the update protocol via WSDL? ; please complete additional details at http://www.w3.org/2009/sparql/track/issues/33/edit . ←
14:40:58 <kasei> ... can we use the correct meaning of all the HTTP errors? will come up with update protocol.
... can we use the correct meaning of all the HTTP errors? will come up with update protocol. ←
14:41:26 <kasei> LeeF: any SOAP people on the call?
Lee Feigenbaum: any SOAP people on the call? ←
14:42:05 <kasei> ... will investigate answers.
... will investigate answers. ←
14:42:24 <LeeF> ACTION: Lee to investigate ISSUE-33
ACTION: Lee to investigate ISSUE-33 ←
14:42:24 <trackbot> Created ACTION-77 - Investigate ISSUE-33 [on Lee Feigenbaum - due 2009-08-11].
Trackbot IRC Bot: Created ACTION-77 - Investigate ISSUE-33 [on Lee Feigenbaum - due 2009-08-11]. ←
14:42:28 <kasei> ... how much desire is there to continue SOAP support?
... how much desire is there to continue SOAP support? ←
14:42:52 <AndyS> q+
Andy Seaborne: q+ ←
14:42:55 <SteveH> +1 to POST only
Steve Harris: +1 to POST only ←
14:43:00 <LeeF> ack AndyS
Lee Feigenbaum: ack AndyS ←
14:43:03 <kasei> LeeF: are people happy with making update protocol use POST with ?update=... ?
Lee Feigenbaum: are people happy with making update protocol use POST with ?update=... ? ←
14:43:31 <pgearon> +q about single or multiple endpoints
Paul Gearon: +q about single or multiple endpoints ←
14:43:35 <chimezie> I'm not sure what the role of the csgi parameter is in this scenario
Chime Ogbuji: I'm not sure what the role of the csgi parameter is in this scenario ←
14:43:38 <pgearon> +q
Paul Gearon: +q ←
14:43:44 <SteveH> +1 to AndyS
Steve Harris: +1 to AndyS ←
14:43:45 <kasei> AndyS: if everything is on one endpoint, hard to use external security.
Andy Seaborne: if everything is on one endpoint, hard to use external security. ←
14:43:53 <LeeF> ack pgearon
Lee Feigenbaum: ack pgearon ←
14:44:08 <SimonS> +1 for allowing both same and different endpoint for update
Simon Schenk: +1 for allowing both same and different endpoint for update ←
14:44:16 <kasei> pgearon: think we need to have a read-only endpoint. useful to do all read operations on read/write endpoint, but seperate issue.
Paul Gearon: think we need to have a read-only endpoint. useful to do all read operations on read/write endpoint, but seperate issue. ←
14:44:48 <chimezie> R+W shouldn't be required, if i understand the question
Chime Ogbuji: R+W shouldn't be required, if i understand the question ←
14:44:55 <kasei> LeeF: (clarifying) can't be the case that all endpoints must support read and write?
Lee Feigenbaum: (clarifying) can't be the case that all endpoints must support read and write? ←
14:45:02 <chimezie> but it should be *okay* to bind two services to the same network address
Chime Ogbuji: but it should be *okay* to bind two services to the same network address ←
14:45:27 <chimezie> +q about cgi param
Chime Ogbuji: +q about cgi param ←
14:45:35 <LeeF> ack chimezie
Lee Feigenbaum: ack chimezie ←
14:45:50 <AndyS> I'm OK with read-only endpoint and read-write endpoint. Just care about framing to stress read-only is publishing safely.
Andy Seaborne: I'm OK with read-only endpoint and read-write endpoint. Just care about framing to stress read-only is publishing safely. ←
14:46:03 <bglimm> soory, fire alarm here
Birte Glimm: soory, fire alarm here ←
14:46:06 <bglimm> I have to leave
Birte Glimm: I have to leave ←
14:46:08 <kasei> chimezie: what did you have in mind with update=?
Chime Ogbuji: what did you have in mind with update=? ←
14:46:22 <AndyS> q+ to ask about caching
Andy Seaborne: q+ to ask about caching ←
14:46:50 <kasei> pgearon: by having update=, only allows update operations. no query operations following update=.
Paul Gearon: by having update=, only allows update operations. no query operations following update=. ←
14:47:04 <LukeWM_> q+
Luke Wilson-Mawer: q+ ←
14:47:35 <kasei> chimezie: address you're POSTing to implies action you want.
Chime Ogbuji: address you're POSTing to implies action you want. ←
14:48:19 <kasei> pgearon: want seperation to allow decisions based on security concerns.
Paul Gearon: want seperation to allow decisions based on security concerns. ←
14:48:36 <kasei> ... want code that doesn't know how to do any writing to data store.
... want code that doesn't know how to do any writing to data store. ←
14:48:37 <LeeF__> q?
Lee Feigenbaum: q? ←
14:48:48 <kasei> ... want to protect write code much more strongly.
... want to protect write code much more strongly. ←
14:49:05 <kasei> ... would be nice to read from write endpoint, but not necessary.
... would be nice to read from write endpoint, but not necessary. ←
14:49:24 <LeeF> ack LukeWM_
Lee Feigenbaum: ack LukeWM_ ←
14:50:07 <kasei> can someone scribe what Luke is saying? I can't make it out.
can someone scribe what Luke is saying? I can't make it out. ←
14:50:26 <chimezie> I guess you can enforce separation (for security purposes) either at the protocol level or leave it up to the 'query engine' to manage access control (below the level of the protocol)
Chime Ogbuji: I guess you can enforce separation (for security purposes) either at the protocol level or leave it up to the 'query engine' to manage access control (below the level of the protocol) ←
14:50:32 <LeeF> ack AndyS
Lee Feigenbaum: ack AndyS ←
14:50:32 <Zakim> AndyS, you wanted to ask about caching
Zakim IRC Bot: AndyS, you wanted to ask about caching ←
14:50:48 <kasei> AndyS: like the idea of having read/write endpoints. useful.
Andy Seaborne: like the idea of having read/write endpoints. useful. ←
14:51:08 <kasei> ... if you do GET as read, might see inconsistent views. maybe only allow POST on read/write endpoints.
... if you do GET as read, might see inconsistent views. maybe only allow POST on read/write endpoints. ←
14:51:36 <kasei> ... want to put security outside the endpoint. implementation choice.
... want to put security outside the endpoint. implementation choice. ←
14:52:16 <SteveH> I like required POST, and update=
Steve Harris: I like required POST, and update= ←
14:52:25 <AndyS> +1
Andy Seaborne: +1 ←
14:52:28 <kasei> LeeF: consensus in support of HTTP POST. no consensus yet regarding ?query= and ?update= seperation.
Lee Feigenbaum: consensus in support of HTTP POST. no consensus yet regarding ?query= and ?update= seperation. ←
14:53:05 <LeeF> PROPOSED: HTTP version of SPARQL/Protocol for SPARQL/Update statements involves always sending the update statements over HTTP POST
PROPOSED: HTTP version of SPARQL/Protocol for SPARQL/Update statements involves always sending the update statements over HTTP POST ←
14:53:30 <AndyS> Seconded
Andy Seaborne: Seconded ←
14:53:39 <pgearon> +1
Paul Gearon: +1 ←
14:53:49 <LeeF> RESOLVED: HTTP version of SPARQL/Protocol for SPARQL/Update statements involves always sending the update statements over HTTP POST
RESOLVED: HTTP version of SPARQL/Protocol for SPARQL/Update statements involves always sending the update statements over HTTP POST ←
14:53:57 <LeeF> no objections or abstentions
Lee Feigenbaum: no objections or abstentions ←
14:54:14 <LukeWM_> My point before was: although separate read/write and read endpoints seem more convenient, in practice applications will end up simply using read/write for everything.
Luke Wilson-Mawer: My point before was: although separate read/write and read endpoints seem more convenient, in practice applications will end up simply using read/write for everything. ←
14:54:21 <kasei> LeeF: is question of whether parameter is query= or update= something to be continued on mailing list?
Lee Feigenbaum: is question of whether parameter is query= or update= something to be continued on mailing list? ←
14:54:32 <kasei> chimezie: yes.
Chime Ogbuji: yes. ←
14:54:41 <LeeF> ACTION: chimezie to continue discussion of update= vs. query= on the mailing list
ACTION: chimezie to continue discussion of update= vs. query= on the mailing list ←
14:54:41 <trackbot> Created ACTION-78 - Continue discussion of update= vs. query= on the mailing list [on Chimezie Ogbuji - due 2009-08-11].
Trackbot IRC Bot: Created ACTION-78 - Continue discussion of update= vs. query= on the mailing list [on Chimezie Ogbuji - due 2009-08-11]. ←
14:55:12 <kasei> LeeF: want to allow read only and read/write endpoints.
Lee Feigenbaum: want to allow read only and read/write endpoints. ←
14:55:22 <SteveH> if we have read/write endpoints then using query= everywhere will be problematic for some implementations
Steve Harris: if we have read/write endpoints then using query= everywhere will be problematic for some implementations ←
14:55:32 <kasei> ... punt on service descriptions until next week.
... punt on service descriptions until next week. ←
14:56:02 <SteveH> bye
Steve Harris: bye ←
14:56:02 <LeeF> adjourned
Lee Feigenbaum: adjourned ←
Formatted by CommonScribe
This revision (#1) generated 2009-08-04 15:32:51 UTC by 'gwilliam', comments: 'Cleaned up chatlog, fixing names, substitutions, and typos, removing unnecessary discussion (e.g. with Zakim, and some before telecon started).'