14:57:00 <LukeWM> Present: Souri, SteveH, AndyS, LukeWM, LeeF, MatthewPerry, kasei, KjetilK, dcharbon2, pgearon, bglimm, AlexPassant, Sandro, Orri, chimezie
14:57:00 <LukeWM> Note - SteveH only present on IRC for first few minutes.
Luke Wilson-Mawer: Note - SteveH only present on IRC for first few minutes. ←
15:07:14 <LeeF> Regrets: SteveH, OlivierCorby, AxelP
14:54:49 <kasei> wasn't entirely sure if the entailment terms had been nailed down in that lengthy email thread.
Gregory Williams: wasn't entirely sure if the entailment terms had been nailed down in that lengthy email thread. ←
14:55:36 <LeeF> SteveH, we didn't resolve the scope of alias variables last week because we wanted your input - are you happy with the proposal as put in the agenda?
Lee Feigenbaum: SteveH, we didn't resolve the scope of alias variables last week because we wanted your input - are you happy with the proposal as put in the agenda? ←
14:55:39 <AndyS> SteveH, custom aggregate syntax?
Andy Seaborne: SteveH, custom aggregate syntax? ←
14:56:11 <SteveH> LeeF, I have no strong feelings on scope, whatever people think is sensible is fine by me
Steve Harris: LeeF, I have no strong feelings on scope, whatever people think is sensible is fine by me ←
14:56:19 <LeeF> thanks, SteveH
Lee Feigenbaum: thanks, SteveH ←
14:56:25 <SteveH> AndyS, someone mentioned optional AS, apparently, I'm firmly against that
Steve Harris: AndyS, someone mentioned optional AS, apparently, I'm firmly against that ←
14:57:20 <AndyS> SteveH, reason? Comes up in example applications when not over HTTP.
Andy Seaborne: SteveH, reason? Comes up in example applications when not over HTTP. ←
14:57:27 <LeeF> the F2F discussion on custom syntax for aggregates was "Mild opinion in favor of having no keyword or special syntax for custom aggregate functions (LeeF, Axel, SteveH, kasei). pgearon (and observer dajobe) expressed mild preference for a keyword to introduce custom aggregates. Consensus that this should be advice to the editors. "
Lee Feigenbaum: the F2F discussion on custom syntax for aggregates was "Mild opinion in favor of having no keyword or special syntax for custom aggregate functions (LeeF, Axel, SteveH, kasei). pgearon (and observer dajobe) expressed mild preference for a keyword to introduce custom aggregates. Consensus that this should be advice to the editors. " ←
14:58:10 <LeeF> Agenda: http://www.w3.org/2009/sparql/wiki/Agenda-2009-12-15
14:58:20 <LeeF> LeeF has changed the topic to: http://www.w3.org/2009/sparql/wiki/Agenda-2009-12-15
Lee Feigenbaum: LeeF has changed the topic to: http://www.w3.org/2009/sparql/wiki/Agenda-2009-12-15 ←
14:58:44 <kasei> Zakim, mute me
Gregory Williams: Zakim, mute me ←
14:58:54 <AndyS> It's down to SteveH in the end but this editor would go for no special syntax unless proven to need it in which case AGG(<uri>, ..args..)
Andy Seaborne: It's down to SteveH in the end but this editor would go for no special syntax unless proven to need it in which case AGG(<uri>, ..args..) ←
14:59:18 <LeeF> AndyS - I think that's the general feeling of the group then, but we'll talk about it in a bit (hopefully not for too long!)
Lee Feigenbaum: AndyS - I think that's the general feeling of the group then, but we'll talk about it in a bit (hopefully not for too long!) ←
14:59:59 <SteveH> I prefer no special syntax too
Steve Harris: I prefer no special syntax too ←
15:06:01 <LukeWM> LeeF: talks to people about whether they can make the third F2F
(No events recorded for 6 minutes)
Lee Feigenbaum: talks to people about whether they can make the third F2F [ Scribe Assist by Luke Wilson-Mawer ] ←
15:06:54 <LeeF> http://www.w3.org/2009/sparql/wiki/Agenda-2009-12-15
Lee Feigenbaum: http://www.w3.org/2009/sparql/wiki/Agenda-2009-12-15 ←
15:07:00 <LeeF> topic: admin
15:07:16 <LeeF> PROPOSED: Approve minutes at http://www.w3.org/2009/sparql/meeting/2009-12-08
PROPOSED: Approve minutes at http://www.w3.org/2009/sparql/meeting/2009-12-08 ←
15:07:41 <LeeF> RESOLVED: Approve minutes at http://www.w3.org/2009/sparql/meeting/2009-12-08
RESOLVED: Approve minutes at http://www.w3.org/2009/sparql/meeting/2009-12-08 ←
15:07:49 <LeeF> Next meeting: 2009-12-22 @ 15:00 UK / 10:00 EST
Lee Feigenbaum: Next meeting: 2009-12-22 @ 15:00 UK / 10:00 EST ←
15:08:07 <LukeWM> LeeF: next meeting is going to be next week.
Lee Feigenbaum: next meeting is going to be next week. [ Scribe Assist by Luke Wilson-Mawer ] ←
15:08:18 <LeeF> subtopic: F2F3
15:08:23 <LukeWM> LeeF: get documents in order for publication in January, so it's useful to come if you can.
Lee Feigenbaum: get documents in order for publication in January, so it's useful to come if you can. [ Scribe Assist by Luke Wilson-Mawer ] ←
15:08:42 <LeeF> F2F3 will be March 25 & 26, 2010
Lee Feigenbaum: F2F3 will be March 25 & 26, 2010 ←
15:08:50 <LeeF> with 2 locations - one in Cambridge, MA at MIT
Lee Feigenbaum: with 2 locations - one in Cambridge, MA at MIT ←
15:09:00 <LukeWM> LeeF: F3F march 25, 26 with video conferencing.
Lee Feigenbaum: F3F march 25, 26 with video conferencing. [ Scribe Assist by Luke Wilson-Mawer ] ←
15:09:12 <LeeF> one location at Oxford, UK
Lee Feigenbaum: one location at Oxford, UK ←
15:09:41 <LeeF> ACTION: Sandro to work with Birte to figure out video conference facilities for F2F3
ACTION: Sandro to work with Birte to figure out video conference facilities for F2F3 ←
15:09:42 <trackbot> Created ACTION-154 - Work with Birte to figure out video conference facilities for F2F3 [on Sandro Hawke - due 2009-12-22].
Trackbot IRC Bot: Created ACTION-154 - Work with Birte to figure out video conference facilities for F2F3 [on Sandro Hawke - due 2009-12-22]. ←
15:10:24 <LukeWM> LeeF: comment handling, some questions on the process.
Lee Feigenbaum: comment handling, some questions on the process. [ Scribe Assist by Luke Wilson-Mawer ] ←
15:10:38 <LeeF> http://www.w3.org/2009/sparql/wiki/Comments
Lee Feigenbaum: http://www.w3.org/2009/sparql/wiki/Comments ←
15:10:58 <LukeWM> LeeF: if you're swapped in on a relevant topic, compose response, put it on a link to the wiki on http://www.w3.org/2009/sparql/wiki/Comments, notify mailing list and wait a few days.
Lee Feigenbaum: if you're swapped in on a relevant topic, compose response, put it on a link to the wiki on http://www.w3.org/2009/sparql/wiki/Comments, notify mailing list and wait a few days. [ Scribe Assist by Luke Wilson-Mawer ] ←
15:11:25 <LukeWM> LeeF: if you have a response saying it's OK, send it out, if saying it's not OK, don't send it out.
Lee Feigenbaum: if you have a response saying it's OK, send it out, if saying it's not OK, don't send it out. [ Scribe Assist by Luke Wilson-Mawer ] ←
15:11:38 <LukeWM> LeeF: if no response, bug the chairs.
Lee Feigenbaum: if no response, bug the chairs. [ Scribe Assist by Luke Wilson-Mawer ] ←
15:11:46 <LukeWM> LeeF: no liason business?
Lee Feigenbaum: no liason business? [ Scribe Assist by Luke Wilson-Mawer ] ←
15:12:06 <LeeF> topic: scope of alias variables
15:12:57 <LukeWM> LeeF: question on the table is can the variable ?SUM be used in other places in the query.
Lee Feigenbaum: question on the table is can the variable ?SUM be used in other places in the query. [ Scribe Assist by Luke Wilson-Mawer ] ←
15:13:38 <LukeWM> LeeF: proposal is that they can be used in HAVING and further to the right in the SELECT clause, but they can't come in the query pattern.
Lee Feigenbaum: proposal is that they can be used in HAVING and further to the right in the SELECT clause, but they can't come in the query pattern. [ Scribe Assist by Luke Wilson-Mawer ] ←
15:13:41 <AndyS> q+
Andy Seaborne: q+ ←
15:13:50 <LeeF> ack AndyS
Lee Feigenbaum: ack AndyS ←
15:13:56 <LukeWM> Orri: why not in order by/group by?
Orri Erling: why not in order by/group by? [ Scribe Assist by Luke Wilson-Mawer ] ←
15:14:13 <AndyS> will check here
Andy Seaborne: will check here ←
15:14:15 <AndyS> sorry
Andy Seaborne: sorry ←
15:14:27 <AndyS> Should be in ORDER
Andy Seaborne: Should be in ORDER ←
15:14:53 <AndyS> need example for why it's needed.
Andy Seaborne: need example for why it's needed. ←
15:15:04 <AndyS> (this is GROUP BY in same SLECT block
Andy Seaborne: (this is GROUP BY in same SLECT block ←
15:15:05 <kasei> I think we can hear Andy :)
Gregory Williams: I think we can hear Andy :) ←
15:15:33 <LukeWM> AndyS: you can't GROUP BY COUNT(*) so the scoping issue is the same
Andy Seaborne: you can't GROUP BY COUNT(*) so the scoping issue is the same [ Scribe Assist by Luke Wilson-Mawer ] ←
15:15:46 <LukeWM> ... because the AS clause introduces new variables.
Luke Wilson-Mawer: ... because the AS clause introduces new variables. ←
15:15:57 <LukeWM> AndyS: you can say ORDER BY COUNT(*) though.
Andy Seaborne: you can say ORDER BY COUNT(*) though. [ Scribe Assist by Luke Wilson-Mawer ] ←
15:15:58 <kasei> but grouping by scalar expressions...?
Gregory Williams: but grouping by scalar expressions...? ←
15:16:47 <LukeWM> LeeF: we have open actions on SteveH to do with GROUP BY.
Lee Feigenbaum: we have open actions on SteveH to do with GROUP BY. [ Scribe Assist by Luke Wilson-Mawer ] ←
15:17:10 <LukeWM> LeeF: there are questions on expression equivalence etc. and it's all equivalent.
Lee Feigenbaum: there are questions on expression equivalence etc. and it's all equivalent. [ Scribe Assist by Luke Wilson-Mawer ] ←
15:17:25 <LukeWM> LeeF: I'd like to resolve this issue without touching the GROUP BY thing.
Lee Feigenbaum: I'd like to resolve this issue without touching the GROUP BY thing. [ Scribe Assist by Luke Wilson-Mawer ] ←
15:17:30 <AndyS> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-dawg/2009OctDec/0585.html
Andy Seaborne: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-dawg/2009OctDec/0585.html ←
15:17:31 <LukeWM> AndyS: fine
Andy Seaborne: fine [ Scribe Assist by Luke Wilson-Mawer ] ←
15:17:51 <LeeF> PROPOSED: Aliased variables can be used in expressions further to the right in the SELECT clause and in the HAVING clause and in the ORDER BY clause; query strings that have an aliased variable elsewhere (e.g. in the query pattern) are malformed queries.
PROPOSED: Aliased variables can be used in expressions further to the right in the SELECT clause and in the HAVING clause and in the ORDER BY clause; query strings that have an aliased variable elsewhere (e.g. in the query pattern) are malformed queries. ←
15:18:11 <AndyS> which says no to GROUP and yes to ORDER at that level of the SELECT nexting
Andy Seaborne: which says no to GROUP and yes to ORDER at that level of the SELECT nexting ←
15:19:06 <LeeF> SELECT (?x + ?y AS ?sum) ... GROUP BY ?sum
Lee Feigenbaum: SELECT (?x + ?y AS ?sum) ... GROUP BY ?sum ←
15:19:28 <LukeWM> kasei: maybe this relates to GROUP BY with scalars? I'm worried by the way it's been phrased.
Gregory Williams: maybe this relates to GROUP BY with scalars? I'm worried by the way it's been phrased. [ Scribe Assist by Luke Wilson-Mawer ] ←
15:19:32 <AndyS> q+ to say it can be done
Andy Seaborne: q+ to say it can be done ←
15:19:38 <LeeF> ack AndyS
Lee Feigenbaum: ack AndyS ←
15:19:38 <Zakim> AndyS, you wanted to say it can be done
Zakim IRC Bot: AndyS, you wanted to say it can be done ←
15:19:52 <LukeWM> LeeF:we can revisit the issues with GROUP BY later.
Lee Feigenbaum: we can revisit the issues with GROUP BY later. [ Scribe Assist by Luke Wilson-Mawer ] ←
15:20:32 <kasei> +1
Gregory Williams: +1 ←
15:20:33 <MatthewPerry> +1
Matthew Perry: +1 ←
15:20:35 <LukeWM> LeeF: order by now, revisit group bys later.
Lee Feigenbaum: order by now, revisit group bys later. [ Scribe Assist by Luke Wilson-Mawer ] ←
15:20:41 <LukeWM> LeeF: happy?
Lee Feigenbaum: happy? [ Scribe Assist by Luke Wilson-Mawer ] ←
15:20:45 <bglimm> +1
Birte Glimm: +1 ←
15:20:48 <LeeF> RESOLVED: Aliased variables can be used in expressions further to the right in the SELECT clause and in the HAVING clause and in the ORDER BY clause; query strings that have an aliased variable elsewhere (e.g. in the query pattern) are malformed queries.
RESOLVED: Aliased variables can be used in expressions further to the right in the SELECT clause and in the HAVING clause and in the ORDER BY clause; query strings that have an aliased variable elsewhere (e.g. in the query pattern) are malformed queries. ←
15:20:48 <AndyS> +1
Andy Seaborne: +1 ←
15:20:51 <dcharbon2> +1
David Charboneau: +1 ←
15:20:59 <LeeF> topic: custom syntax for aggregates
15:21:07 <LukeWM> LeeF: ... summary
Lee Feigenbaum: ... summary [ Scribe Assist by Luke Wilson-Mawer ] ←
15:21:23 <LukeWM> LeeF: Aggregate functions are different to scalars in a number of ways.
Lee Feigenbaum: Aggregate functions are different to scalars in a number of ways. [ Scribe Assist by Luke Wilson-Mawer ] ←
15:21:39 <LukeWM> LeeF: e.g. having, group by.
Lee Feigenbaum: e.g. having, group by. [ Scribe Assist by Luke Wilson-Mawer ] ←
15:22:00 <LukeWM> LeeF: sometimes you have to know if something is an aggregate function rather than a scalar.
Lee Feigenbaum: sometimes you have to know if something is an aggregate function rather than a scalar. [ Scribe Assist by Luke Wilson-Mawer ] ←
15:22:40 <LukeWM> LeeF: question is, do we want static syntax errors (grammar doesn't allow error conditions)?
Lee Feigenbaum: question is, do we want static syntax errors (grammar doesn't allow error conditions)? [ Scribe Assist by Luke Wilson-Mawer ] ←
15:22:54 <LukeWM> LeeF: no problem for built in aggregates
Lee Feigenbaum: no problem for built in aggregates [ Scribe Assist by Luke Wilson-Mawer ] ←
15:23:44 <LukeWM> LeeF: but challenging when custom functions are introduced. Arbitrary URIs don't allow differentiation between scalars and aggregates.
Lee Feigenbaum: but challenging when custom functions are introduced. Arbitrary URIs don't allow differentiation between scalars and aggregates. [ Scribe Assist by Luke Wilson-Mawer ] ←
15:24:51 <LukeWM> LeeF: Either: 1) a new piece of syntax and static syntax errors, or 2) make error conditions where implementations have to look up URIs and work out whether they're aggregates or not.
Lee Feigenbaum: Either: 1) a new piece of syntax and static syntax errors, or 2) make error conditions where implementations have to look up URIs and work out whether they're aggregates or not. [ Scribe Assist by Luke Wilson-Mawer ] ←
15:25:39 <LukeWM> LeeF: what do you all think? It seems there's a mild leaning towards not having custom syntax.
Lee Feigenbaum: what do you all think? It seems there's a mild leaning towards not having custom syntax. [ Scribe Assist by Luke Wilson-Mawer ] ←
15:26:07 <LukeWM> LeeF: pgearon seemed pro custom syntax at F2F
Lee Feigenbaum: pgearon seemed pro custom syntax at F2F [ Scribe Assist by Luke Wilson-Mawer ] ←
15:26:44 <LukeWM> pgearon: happy to go with whatever the group goes with but.
Paul Gearon: happy to go with whatever the group goes with but. [ Scribe Assist by Luke Wilson-Mawer ] ←
15:26:45 <LukeWM> pgearon: was shooting from the hip earlier, but like to have a way of differentiating between what's built in and what's an extension.
Paul Gearon: was shooting from the hip earlier, but like to have a way of differentiating between what's built in and what's an extension. [ Scribe Assist by Luke Wilson-Mawer ] ←
15:27:23 <LukeWM> LeeF: we can still still differentiate between extensions and built in
Lee Feigenbaum: we can still still differentiate between extensions and built in [ Scribe Assist by Luke Wilson-Mawer ] ←
15:27:43 <LukeWM> pgearon: it could be confusing to people
Paul Gearon: it could be confusing to people [ Scribe Assist by Luke Wilson-Mawer ] ←
15:28:04 <LukeWM> LeeF: anyone else want special syntax for custom aggregates?
Lee Feigenbaum: anyone else want special syntax for custom aggregates? [ Scribe Assist by Luke Wilson-Mawer ] ←
15:28:52 <LeeF> PROPOSED: Custom aggregate functions are invoked by URIs with no special syntax
PROPOSED: Custom aggregate functions are invoked by URIs with no special syntax ←
15:29:13 <AndyS> seconded
Andy Seaborne: seconded ←
15:29:42 <bglimm> I abstain, I just don't know enough about the consequenes
Birte Glimm: I abstain, I just don't know enough about the consequenes ←
15:29:49 <bglimm> I go with the group too
Birte Glimm: I go with the group too ←
15:29:57 <Souri> +0
Souripriya Das: +0 ←
15:30:01 <LeeF> RESOLVED: Custom aggregate functions are invoked by URIs with no special syntax, no objections or abstentions
RESOLVED: Custom aggregate functions are invoked by URIs with no special syntax, no objections or abstentions ←
15:30:07 <LukeWM> LeeF: are you OK with this pgearon?
Lee Feigenbaum: are you OK with this pgearon? [ Scribe Assist by Luke Wilson-Mawer ] ←
15:30:16 <pgearon> yes
Paul Gearon: yes ←
15:30:20 <LukeWM> pgearon: Yes, I'll go with the group
Paul Gearon: Yes, I'll go with the group [ Scribe Assist by Luke Wilson-Mawer ] ←
15:30:26 <LeeF> topic: publication
15:30:45 <LukeWM> LeeF: had 2 goals.
Lee Feigenbaum: had 2 goals. [ Scribe Assist by Luke Wilson-Mawer ] ←
15:31:10 <LukeWM> LeeF: 1) Resolve issues.
Lee Feigenbaum: 1) Resolve issues. [ Scribe Assist by Luke Wilson-Mawer ] ←
15:31:20 <LukeWM> LeeF: 2) change information in the document.
Lee Feigenbaum: 2) change information in the document. [ Scribe Assist by Luke Wilson-Mawer ] ←
15:31:39 <LukeWM> LeeF: 3) Make sure reviewers are given a heads up.
Lee Feigenbaum: 3) Make sure reviewers are given a heads up. [ Scribe Assist by Luke Wilson-Mawer ] ←
15:31:48 <chimezie> change information in the document = change log at bottom or something more?
Chimezie Ogbuji: change information in the document = change log at bottom or something more? ←
15:32:19 <LukeWM> LeeF: being aggressive, and would like reviews in first week of January.
Lee Feigenbaum: being aggressive, and would like reviews in first week of January. [ Scribe Assist by Luke Wilson-Mawer ] ←
15:33:01 <LukeWM> LeeF: changing information in the document means looking at major changes since last time we published.
Lee Feigenbaum: changing information in the document means looking at major changes since last time we published. [ Scribe Assist by Luke Wilson-Mawer ] ←
15:33:39 <LukeWM> LeeF: hopefully publish middle/second half of january.
Lee Feigenbaum: hopefully publish middle/second half of january. [ Scribe Assist by Luke Wilson-Mawer ] ←
15:33:39 <LeeF> subtopic: query
15:33:43 <LeeF> http://www.w3.org/2009/sparql/docs/query-1.1/
Lee Feigenbaum: http://www.w3.org/2009/sparql/docs/query-1.1/ ←
15:34:00 <LukeWM> LeeF: where are we on 1), 2), 3) on query?
Lee Feigenbaum: where are we on 1), 2), 3) on query? [ Scribe Assist by Luke Wilson-Mawer ] ←
15:34:28 <LukeWM> AndyS: all but one issue is resolved, the one left is EXISTS or MINUS which won't be resolved with this publication.
Andy Seaborne: all but one issue is resolved, the one left is EXISTS or MINUS which won't be resolved with this publication. [ Scribe Assist by Luke Wilson-Mawer ] ←
15:35:12 <LukeWM> AndyS: Need to put exists material in the next few days.
Andy Seaborne: Need to put exists material in the next few days. [ Scribe Assist by Luke Wilson-Mawer ] ←
15:35:12 <LeeF> Query reviewers: Birte, Matt Souri, Axel
Lee Feigenbaum: Query reviewers: Birte, Matt Souri, Axel ←
15:35:30 <LukeWM> AndyS: not sure what SteveH's status is.
Andy Seaborne: not sure what SteveH's status is. [ Scribe Assist by Luke Wilson-Mawer ] ←
15:35:44 <LukeWM> LeeF: can you give the go ahead to the reviewers in the next week or so?
Lee Feigenbaum: can you give the go ahead to the reviewers in the next week or so? [ Scribe Assist by Luke Wilson-Mawer ] ←
15:36:01 <bglimm> Is query 1.1 now integrated with query 1.0?
Birte Glimm: Is query 1.1 now integrated with query 1.0? ←
15:36:04 <AndyS> See http://www.w3.org/2009/sparql/wiki/WG-Documents
Andy Seaborne: See http://www.w3.org/2009/sparql/wiki/WG-Documents ←
15:36:17 <LukeWM> AndyS: probably a bit stretched on Steve's end but don't want to put words in his mouth.
Andy Seaborne: probably a bit stretched on Steve's end but don't want to put words in his mouth. [ Scribe Assist by Luke Wilson-Mawer ] ←
15:36:39 <AndyS> http://www.w3.org/2009/sparql/docs/query-1.1/rq25.xml
Andy Seaborne: http://www.w3.org/2009/sparql/docs/query-1.1/rq25.xml ←
15:36:47 <LeeF> are we using http://www.w3.org/2009/sparql/docs/query-1.1/ or http://www.w3.org/2009/sparql/docs/query-1.1/rq25.xml?
Lee Feigenbaum: are we using http://www.w3.org/2009/sparql/docs/query-1.1/ or http://www.w3.org/2009/sparql/docs/query-1.1/rq25.xml? ←
15:37:06 <LukeWM> AndyS: haven't got the formatting sorted yet.
Andy Seaborne: haven't got the formatting sorted yet. [ Scribe Assist by Luke Wilson-Mawer ] ←
15:39:08 <LeeF> Right now, look at http://www.w3.org/2009/sparql/docs/query-1.1/rq25.xml for the latest
Lee Feigenbaum: Right now, look at http://www.w3.org/2009/sparql/docs/query-1.1/rq25.xml for the latest ←
15:39:27 <LukeWM> Souri: rq25.xml is the latest?
Souripriya Das: rq25.xml is the latest? [ Scribe Assist by Luke Wilson-Mawer ] ←
15:39:28 <LeeF> subtopic: Update
15:39:29 <LeeF> http://www.w3.org/2009/sparql/docs/update-1.1/
Lee Feigenbaum: http://www.w3.org/2009/sparql/docs/update-1.1/ ←
15:39:31 <LukeWM> AndyS: yes
Andy Seaborne: yes [ Scribe Assist by Luke Wilson-Mawer ] ←
15:40:01 <AndyS> ACTION: Andy: Move Overview.html out of the way
ACTION: Andy: Move Overview.html out of the way ←
15:40:02 <trackbot> Created ACTION-155 - Move Overview.html out of the way [on Andy Seaborne - due 2009-12-22].
Trackbot IRC Bot: Created ACTION-155 - Move Overview.html out of the way [on Andy Seaborne - due 2009-12-22]. ←
15:40:40 <LukeWM> pgearon: The document links issues, do we keep them?
Paul Gearon: The document links issues, do we keep them? [ Scribe Assist by Luke Wilson-Mawer ] ←
15:41:05 <LukeWM> LeeF: Could go either way. It would be nice to keep them in the document.
Lee Feigenbaum: Could go either way. It would be nice to keep them in the document. [ Scribe Assist by Luke Wilson-Mawer ] ←
15:41:22 <LukeWM> pgearon: lots of the issues are no longer relevant but not formally resolved.
Paul Gearon: lots of the issues are no longer relevant but not formally resolved. [ Scribe Assist by Luke Wilson-Mawer ] ←
15:41:32 <LukeWM> LeeF: feel free to remove where appropriate.
Lee Feigenbaum: feel free to remove where appropriate. [ Scribe Assist by Luke Wilson-Mawer ] ←
15:41:51 <LeeF> Update reviewers: AndyS, Axel
Lee Feigenbaum: Update reviewers: AndyS, Axel ←
15:42:21 <LukeWM> LeeF: is it going to be ready for reviewers soon?
Lee Feigenbaum: is it going to be ready for reviewers soon? [ Scribe Assist by Luke Wilson-Mawer ] ←
15:42:27 <LukeWM> pgearon: at least by the weekend?
Paul Gearon: at least by the weekend? [ Scribe Assist by Luke Wilson-Mawer ] ←
15:42:48 <LukeWM> LeeF: any issues, just bring them up with the chairs, and we'll give teleconference time to them.
Lee Feigenbaum: any issues, just bring them up with the chairs, and we'll give teleconference time to them. [ Scribe Assist by Luke Wilson-Mawer ] ←
15:42:51 <LeeF> subtopic: protocol
15:42:52 <LeeF> http://www.w3.org/2009/sparql/docs/protocol-1.1/
Lee Feigenbaum: http://www.w3.org/2009/sparql/docs/protocol-1.1/ ←
15:43:41 <LukeWM> LeeF: david, we should schedule something.
Lee Feigenbaum: david, we should schedule something. [ Scribe Assist by Luke Wilson-Mawer ] ←
15:43:49 <LukeWM> LeeF: friday?
Lee Feigenbaum: friday? [ Scribe Assist by Luke Wilson-Mawer ] ←
15:44:02 <LukeWM> dcharbon2: OK
David Charboneau: OK [ Scribe Assist by Luke Wilson-Mawer ] ←
15:44:15 <LukeWM> LeeF & dcharbon2 coordinate a meeting.
Luke Wilson-Mawer: LeeF & dcharbon2 coordinate a meeting. ←
15:44:20 <LeeF> Leef & dcharbon2 will meet 11am on Friday to sort through protocol document
Lee Feigenbaum: Leef & dcharbon2 will meet 11am on Friday to sort through protocol document ←
15:44:48 <LeeF> subtopic: service description
15:44:48 <LeeF> http://www.w3.org/2009/sparql/docs/service-description-1.1/
Lee Feigenbaum: http://www.w3.org/2009/sparql/docs/service-description-1.1/ ←
15:44:51 <LukeWM> LeeF: david & I will send out plan for protocol on the mailing list based on Friday's meeting.
Lee Feigenbaum: david & I will send out plan for protocol on the mailing list based on Friday's meeting. [ Scribe Assist by Luke Wilson-Mawer ] ←
15:45:16 <LukeWM> kasei: there are a couple of things to get in this week
Gregory Williams: there are a couple of things to get in this week [ Scribe Assist by Luke Wilson-Mawer ] ←
15:45:40 <LukeWM> kasei: one of them is allowing the dataset to have a different name for the graph than the graph's IRI.
Gregory Williams: one of them is allowing the dataset to have a different name for the graph than the graph's IRI. [ Scribe Assist by Luke Wilson-Mawer ] ←
15:46:19 <LukeWM> kasei, I didn't understand something, should I just pull from emails?
Luke Wilson-Mawer: kasei, I didn't understand something, should I just pull from emails? ←
15:46:32 <LukeWM> bglimm: fine by me, not sure about ivanH.
Birte Glimm: fine by me, not sure about ivanH. [ Scribe Assist by Luke Wilson-Mawer ] ←
15:46:53 <LeeF> SD reviwers: david, Alex, Axel
Lee Feigenbaum: SD reviwers: david, Alex, Axel ←
15:46:53 <LukeWM> kasei: will have it done in the next couple of days and then people can look at it.
Gregory Williams: will have it done in the next couple of days and then people can look at it. [ Scribe Assist by Luke Wilson-Mawer ] ←
15:47:08 <bglimm> I'll also have a quick look at SDs
Birte Glimm: I'll also have a quick look at SDs ←
15:47:10 <LeeF> subtopic: http rdf update
15:47:10 <LeeF> http://www.w3.org/2009/sparql/docs/http-rdf-update/
Lee Feigenbaum: http://www.w3.org/2009/sparql/docs/http-rdf-update/ ←
15:47:31 <LeeF> reviewers for rdf-update: andyS, LeeF, Axel
Lee Feigenbaum: reviewers for rdf-update: andyS, LeeF, Axel ←
15:47:33 <chimezie> http://www.w3.org/2009/sparql/wiki/CommentResponse:ldodds-http-update#Response
Chimezie Ogbuji: http://www.w3.org/2009/sparql/wiki/CommentResponse:ldodds-http-update#Response ←
15:48:02 <LeeF> http://www.w3.org/2009/sparql/docs/http-rdf-update/
Lee Feigenbaum: http://www.w3.org/2009/sparql/docs/http-rdf-update/ ←
15:48:32 <LukeWM> chimezie, added a link to the general idea of a use case for adding a user to a list.
Luke Wilson-Mawer: chimezie, added a link to the general idea of a use case for adding a user to a list. ←
15:49:00 <AndyS> q+ to asks about graph naming
Andy Seaborne: q+ to asks about graph naming ←
15:49:02 <LukeWM> chimezie: items in red are not issues as far as I'm concerned, are they issues according to the working group?
Chimezie Ogbuji: items in red are not issues as far as I'm concerned, are they issues according to the working group? [ Scribe Assist by Luke Wilson-Mawer ] ←
15:49:17 <LukeWM> chimezie: we should probably assume RDFXML as a payload type.
Chimezie Ogbuji: we should probably assume RDFXML as a payload type. [ Scribe Assist by Luke Wilson-Mawer ] ←
15:49:52 <LeeF> ack AndyS
Lee Feigenbaum: ack AndyS ←
15:49:52 <Zakim> AndyS, you wanted to asks about graph naming
Zakim IRC Bot: AndyS, you wanted to asks about graph naming ←
15:49:57 <LukeWM> LeeF: in the interests of time, lets leave the red notes in because we might not formally be able to resolve them before publication.
Lee Feigenbaum: in the interests of time, lets leave the red notes in because we might not formally be able to resolve them before publication. [ Scribe Assist by Luke Wilson-Mawer ] ←
15:50:45 <Souri> q+
Souripriya Das: q+ ←
15:50:51 <LukeWM> AndyS: we had a discussion in the working group regarding graph namin.
Andy Seaborne: we had a discussion in the working group regarding graph namin. [ Scribe Assist by Luke Wilson-Mawer ] ←
15:50:52 <LeeF> ack Souri
Lee Feigenbaum: ack Souri ←
15:51:16 <LukeWM> AndyS: we should probably talk about it.
Andy Seaborne: we should probably talk about it. [ Scribe Assist by Luke Wilson-Mawer ] ←
15:51:19 <LukeWM> chimezie: OK
Chimezie Ogbuji: OK [ Scribe Assist by Luke Wilson-Mawer ] ←
15:51:34 <LukeWM> Souri: ntriples will be allowed too, right?
Souripriya Das: ntriples will be allowed too, right? [ Scribe Assist by Luke Wilson-Mawer ] ←
15:51:40 <LukeWM> chimezie: yes
Chimezie Ogbuji: yes [ Scribe Assist by Luke Wilson-Mawer ] ←
15:51:53 <LukeWM> LeeF: what do you need to do before reviewers can look at the document.
Lee Feigenbaum: what do you need to do before reviewers can look at the document. [ Scribe Assist by Luke Wilson-Mawer ] ←
15:52:15 <LukeWM> LeeF: ?
Lee Feigenbaum: ? [ Scribe Assist by Luke Wilson-Mawer ] ←
15:52:27 <LukeWM> chimezie: look at the things that have been talked about today. Will take a couple of days.
Chimezie Ogbuji: look at the things that have been talked about today. Will take a couple of days. [ Scribe Assist by Luke Wilson-Mawer ] ←
15:52:31 <LeeF> subtopic: property paths
15:52:32 <LeeF> http://www.w3.org/2009/sparql/docs/property-paths/Overview.xml
Lee Feigenbaum: http://www.w3.org/2009/sparql/docs/property-paths/Overview.xml ←
15:52:47 <LukeWM> AndyS: I asked reviewers about publishing as is.
Andy Seaborne: I asked reviewers about publishing as is. [ Scribe Assist by Luke Wilson-Mawer ] ←
15:53:07 <LukeWM> AndyS: as it's the first time, I think getting something out is the most important thing.
Andy Seaborne: as it's the first time, I think getting something out is the most important thing. [ Scribe Assist by Luke Wilson-Mawer ] ←
15:53:17 <LukeWM> AndyS: would like reviewers to make comments on that position.
Andy Seaborne: would like reviewers to make comments on that position. [ Scribe Assist by Luke Wilson-Mawer ] ←
15:53:38 <LeeF> subtopic: entailment
15:53:40 <LeeF> http://www.w3.org/2009/sparql/docs/entailment/xmlspec.xml
Lee Feigenbaum: http://www.w3.org/2009/sparql/docs/entailment/xmlspec.xml ←
15:53:46 <LukeWM> LeeF: my opinion is that it's a good idea to let the world know what we're doing on this.
Lee Feigenbaum: my opinion is that it's a good idea to let the world know what we're doing on this. [ Scribe Assist by Luke Wilson-Mawer ] ←
15:54:17 <LukeWM> LeeF: what would you need to do bglimm before it is ready for review
Lee Feigenbaum: what would you need to do bglimm before it is ready for review [ Scribe Assist by Luke Wilson-Mawer ] ←
15:54:18 <LeeF> entailment regimes review: ivanh, Axel
Lee Feigenbaum: entailment regimes review: ivanh, Axel ←
15:54:37 <LukeWM> bglimm: should be ready in a day.
Birte Glimm: should be ready in a day. [ Scribe Assist by Luke Wilson-Mawer ] ←
15:55:19 <LeeF> close as no longer valid:
Lee Feigenbaum: close as no longer valid: ←
15:55:19 <LeeF> http://www.w3.org/2009/sparql/track/actions/19
Lee Feigenbaum: http://www.w3.org/2009/sparql/track/actions/19 ←
15:55:19 <LeeF> close as completed:
Lee Feigenbaum: close as completed: ←
15:55:19 <LeeF> http://www.w3.org/2009/sparql/track/actions/82
Lee Feigenbaum: http://www.w3.org/2009/sparql/track/actions/82 ←
15:55:19 <LeeF> http://www.w3.org/2009/sparql/track/actions/89
Lee Feigenbaum: http://www.w3.org/2009/sparql/track/actions/89 ←
15:55:20 <LeeF> http://www.w3.org/2009/sparql/track/actions/117
Lee Feigenbaum: http://www.w3.org/2009/sparql/track/actions/117 ←
15:55:22 <LeeF> http://www.w3.org/2009/sparql/track/actions/142
Lee Feigenbaum: http://www.w3.org/2009/sparql/track/actions/142 ←
15:56:04 <LukeWM> LeeF: action 19 no longer valid.
Lee Feigenbaum: ACTION-19 no longer valid. [ Scribe Assist by Luke Wilson-Mawer ] ←
15:56:17 <LukeWM> LeeF: action 82 has been dealt with today.
Lee Feigenbaum: ACTION-82 has been dealt with today. [ Scribe Assist by Luke Wilson-Mawer ] ←
15:56:27 <LukeWM> LeeF: 89, no longer relevant.
Lee Feigenbaum: 89, no longer relevant. [ Scribe Assist by Luke Wilson-Mawer ] ←
15:56:34 <LukeWM> LeeF: 117, greg has done this.
Lee Feigenbaum: 117, greg has done this. [ Scribe Assist by Luke Wilson-Mawer ] ←
15:56:44 <LeeF> trackbot, close ACTION-19
Lee Feigenbaum: trackbot, close ACTION-19 ←
15:56:44 <trackbot> ACTION-19 Send to the mailing list a few example cases (data, query, results) of SELECT queries in FILTERs closed
Trackbot IRC Bot: ACTION-19 Send to the mailing list a few example cases (data, query, results) of SELECT queries in FILTERs closed ←
15:56:46 <LeeF> trackbot, close ACTION-82
Lee Feigenbaum: trackbot, close ACTION-82 ←
15:56:46 <trackbot> ACTION-82 Start thread on mailing list re: ISSUE-36 closed
Trackbot IRC Bot: ACTION-82 Start thread on mailing list re: ISSUE-36 closed ←
15:56:47 <LeeF> trackbot, close ACTION-89
Lee Feigenbaum: trackbot, close ACTION-89 ←
15:56:47 <trackbot> ACTION-89 Go through issues list, figure out status, which need to be discussed in TCs, which have pending actions, which can be resolved closed
Trackbot IRC Bot: ACTION-89 Go through issues list, figure out status, which need to be discussed in TCs, which have pending actions, which can be resolved closed ←
15:56:49 <LeeF> trackbot, close ACTION-117
Lee Feigenbaum: trackbot, close ACTION-117 ←
15:56:50 <trackbot> ACTION-117 Incorporate an example for extensibility by the end of the week into SD closed
Trackbot IRC Bot: ACTION-117 Incorporate an example for extensibility by the end of the week into SD closed ←
15:56:51 <LeeF> trackbot, close ACTION-142
Lee Feigenbaum: trackbot, close ACTION-142 ←
15:56:54 <trackbot> ACTION-142 Summarise changes of SD and conclusions from last TC along with open questions. closed
Trackbot IRC Bot: ACTION-142 Summarise changes of SD and conclusions from last TC along with open questions. closed ←
15:56:55 <LukeWM> LeeF: 142 is complete, anyone thing they aren't done?
Lee Feigenbaum: 142 is complete, anyone thing they aren't done? [ Scribe Assist by Luke Wilson-Mawer ] ←
15:56:56 <bglimm> ACTION-153 is also completed
Birte Glimm: ACTION-153 is also completed ←
15:57:05 <bglimm> that's changelog
Birte Glimm: that's changelog ←
15:57:14 <LeeF> trackbot, close ACTION-153
Lee Feigenbaum: trackbot, close ACTION-153 ←
15:57:14 <trackbot> ACTION-153 Provide a high-level changelog summarising what has happened since FPWD in entailment closed
Trackbot IRC Bot: ACTION-153 Provide a high-level changelog summarising what has happened since FPWD in entailment closed ←
15:58:01 <LukeWM> LeeF: happy holiday
Lee Feigenbaum: happy holiday [ Scribe Assist by Luke Wilson-Mawer ] ←
Formatted by CommonScribe
This revision (#2) generated 2009-12-18 17:09:24 UTC by 'lwilsonm', comments: 'Removed chaff from start and end, edited attendees/regrets and moved to the start of the chatlog, removed interactions with Zakim, and tidied up some scribing errors.'