13:56:33 <RRSAgent> logging to http://www.w3.org/2010/07/06-sparql-irc
RRSAgent IRC Bot: logging to http://www.w3.org/2010/07/06-sparql-irc ←
13:56:35 <trackbot> RRSAgent, make logs world
Trackbot IRC Bot: RRSAgent, make logs world ←
13:56:37 <trackbot> Zakim, this will be 77277
Trackbot IRC Bot: Zakim, this will be 77277 ←
13:56:37 <Zakim> ok, trackbot; I see SW_(SPARQL)10:00AM scheduled to start in 4 minutes
Zakim IRC Bot: ok, trackbot; I see SW_(SPARQL)10:00AM scheduled to start in 4 minutes ←
13:56:38 <trackbot> Meeting: SPARQL Working Group Teleconference
13:56:38 <trackbot> Date: 06 July 2010
13:56:38 <SteveH> I used to get a working line like one time in 3
Steve Harris: I used to get a working line like one time in 3 ←
13:56:51 <LeeF> zakim, this will be SPARQL
Lee Feigenbaum: zakim, this will be SPARQL ←
13:56:51 <Zakim> ok, LeeF; I see SW_(SPARQL)10:00AM scheduled to start in 4 minutes
Zakim IRC Bot: ok, LeeF; I see SW_(SPARQL)10:00AM scheduled to start in 4 minutes ←
13:56:52 <AndyS> "adding column" = join, the easy case :-)
Andy Seaborne: "adding column" = join, the easy case :-) ←
13:56:55 <LeeF> Chair: LeeF
13:57:07 <LeeF> Would anyone please volunteer to scribe?
Lee Feigenbaum: Would anyone please volunteer to scribe? ←
13:58:17 <LeeF> Regrets: AlexPassant, AxelPolleres, Souri
13:58:36 <pgearon> sorry, was off getting coffee. I can scribe
Paul Gearon: sorry, was off getting coffee. I can scribe ←
13:58:47 <Zakim> SW_(SPARQL)10:00AM has now started
Zakim IRC Bot: SW_(SPARQL)10:00AM has now started ←
13:58:47 <LeeF> pgearon, that would be great, but didn't you just scribe last week? :)
Lee Feigenbaum: pgearon, that would be great, but didn't you just scribe last week? :) ←
13:58:54 <Zakim> +[IPcaller]
Zakim IRC Bot: +[IPcaller] ←
13:58:57 <Zakim> +Lee_Feigenbaum
Zakim IRC Bot: +Lee_Feigenbaum ←
13:59:02 <pgearon> yes, and I'm not too good at it either. :-)
Paul Gearon: yes, and I'm not too good at it either. :-) ←
13:59:06 <pgearon> so I could use the practice
Paul Gearon: so I could use the practice ←
13:59:10 <AndyS> zakim, +[IPcaller] is me
Andy Seaborne: zakim, +[IPcaller] is me ←
13:59:10 <Zakim> sorry, AndyS, I do not recognize a party named '+[IPcaller]'
Zakim IRC Bot: sorry, AndyS, I do not recognize a party named '+[IPcaller]' ←
13:59:19 <AndyS> zakim, +IPcaller is me
Andy Seaborne: zakim, +IPcaller is me ←
13:59:19 <Zakim> sorry, AndyS, I do not recognize a party named '+IPcaller'
Zakim IRC Bot: sorry, AndyS, I do not recognize a party named '+IPcaller' ←
13:59:20 <LeeF> i will take you up on it then, paul, thanks
Lee Feigenbaum: i will take you up on it then, paul, thanks ←
13:59:23 <AndyS> zakim, IPcaller is me
Andy Seaborne: zakim, IPcaller is me ←
13:59:23 <Zakim> +AndyS; got it
Zakim IRC Bot: +AndyS; got it ←
13:59:24 <LeeF> Scribe: Paul Gearon
(Scribe set to Paul Gearon)
13:59:26 <LeeF> Scribenick: pgearon
13:59:33 <Zakim> +[IPcaller]
Zakim IRC Bot: +[IPcaller] ←
13:59:41 <SteveH> Zakim, [IPcaller] is me
Steve Harris: Zakim, [IPcaller] is me ←
13:59:42 <AndyS> zakim,who is on the phone?
Andy Seaborne: zakim,who is on the phone? ←
13:59:48 <Zakim> +SteveH; got it
Zakim IRC Bot: +SteveH; got it ←
13:59:50 <AndyS> zakim, who is on the phone?
Andy Seaborne: zakim, who is on the phone? ←
13:59:52 <Zakim> On the phone I see AndyS, Lee_Feigenbaum, SteveH
Zakim IRC Bot: On the phone I see AndyS, Lee_Feigenbaum, SteveH ←
13:59:54 <Zakim> +kasei
Zakim IRC Bot: +kasei ←
13:59:56 <Zakim> On the phone I see AndyS, Lee_Feigenbaum, SteveH, kasei
Zakim IRC Bot: On the phone I see AndyS, Lee_Feigenbaum, SteveH, kasei ←
14:00:14 <Zakim> +pgearon
Zakim IRC Bot: +pgearon ←
14:00:50 <Zakim> +MattPerry
Zakim IRC Bot: +MattPerry ←
14:00:56 <Zakim> + +33.4.92.38.aaaa
Zakim IRC Bot: + +33.4.92.38.aaaa ←
14:01:13 <OlivierCorby> zakim, 38.aaaa is me
Olivier Corby: zakim, 38.aaaa is me ←
14:01:22 <Zakim> sorry, OlivierCorby, I do not recognize a party named '38.aaaa'
Zakim IRC Bot: sorry, OlivierCorby, I do not recognize a party named '38.aaaa' ←
14:01:41 <SteveH> I'm going to dial in again, skype is a bit ill
Steve Harris: I'm going to dial in again, skype is a bit ill ←
14:01:48 <kasei> procmail can sort that out, AndyS
Gregory Williams: procmail can sort that out, AndyS ←
14:01:49 <LeeF> zakim, aaaa is OlivierCorby
Lee Feigenbaum: zakim, aaaa is OlivierCorby ←
14:01:50 <Zakim> -SteveH
Zakim IRC Bot: -SteveH ←
14:01:51 <kasei> :)
Gregory Williams: :) ←
14:01:52 <Zakim> +OlivierCorby; got it
Zakim IRC Bot: +OlivierCorby; got it ←
14:02:50 <Zakim> +[IPcaller]
Zakim IRC Bot: +[IPcaller] ←
14:02:54 <SteveH> Zakim, [IPcaller] is me
Steve Harris: Zakim, [IPcaller] is me ←
14:02:58 <Zakim> +SteveH; got it
Zakim IRC Bot: +SteveH; got it ←
14:03:18 <Zakim> +Sandro
Zakim IRC Bot: +Sandro ←
14:03:41 <SteveH> seems not
Steve Harris: seems not ←
14:03:44 <NicholasH> I can't get the UK number to work
Nicholas Humfrey: I can't get the UK number to work ←
14:03:53 <SteveH> me neither
Steve Harris: me neither ←
14:03:53 <NicholasH> just phoning BBC Operator to connect me to US number
Nicholas Humfrey: just phoning BBC Operator to connect me to US number ←
14:03:56 <Zakim> +bglimm
Zakim IRC Bot: +bglimm ←
14:03:58 <Zakim> +??P45
Zakim IRC Bot: +??P45 ←
14:04:09 <bglimm> Zakim, mute me
Birte Glimm: Zakim, mute me ←
14:04:10 <Zakim> bglimm should now be muted
Zakim IRC Bot: bglimm should now be muted ←
14:04:12 <Zakim> -??P45
Zakim IRC Bot: -??P45 ←
14:04:29 <LeeF> topic: Admin
14:04:31 <Zakim> +??P1
Zakim IRC Bot: +??P1 ←
14:04:40 <LeeF> PROPOSED: Approve minutes at http://www.w3.org/2009/sparql/meeting/2010-06-29
PROPOSED: Approve minutes at http://www.w3.org/2009/sparql/meeting/2010-06-29 ←
14:04:41 <NicholasH> zakim, ??P1 is me
Nicholas Humfrey: zakim, ??P1 is me ←
14:04:42 <Zakim> +NicholasH; got it
Zakim IRC Bot: +NicholasH; got it ←
14:05:01 <LeeF> zakim, who's on the phone?
Lee Feigenbaum: zakim, who's on the phone? ←
14:05:01 <Zakim> On the phone I see AndyS, Lee_Feigenbaum, kasei, pgearon, MattPerry, OlivierCorby, SteveH, Sandro, bglimm (muted), NicholasH
Zakim IRC Bot: On the phone I see AndyS, Lee_Feigenbaum, kasei, pgearon, MattPerry, OlivierCorby, SteveH, Sandro, bglimm (muted), NicholasH ←
14:05:23 <chimezie> Zakim, what is the code?
Chimezie Ogbuji: Zakim, what is the code? ←
14:05:23 <Zakim> the conference code is 77277 (tel:+1.617.761.6200 tel:+33.4.89.06.34.99 tel:+44.117.370.6152), chimezie
Zakim IRC Bot: the conference code is 77277 (tel:+1.617.761.6200 tel:+33.4.89.06.34.99 tel:+44.117.370.6152), chimezie ←
14:05:40 <LeeF> RESOLVED: Approve minutes at http://www.w3.org/2009/sparql/meeting/2010-06-29
RESOLVED: Approve minutes at http://www.w3.org/2009/sparql/meeting/2010-06-29 ←
14:05:41 <pgearon> LeeF: any issues from last week?
Lee Feigenbaum: any issues from last week? ←
14:05:59 <LeeF> Next meeting: 2010-07-13 @ 15:00 UK / 10:00 EDT
Lee Feigenbaum: Next meeting: 2010-07-13 @ 15:00 UK / 10:00 EDT ←
14:06:05 <Zakim> +Chimezie_Ogbuji
Zakim IRC Bot: +Chimezie_Ogbuji ←
14:06:17 <LeeF> regrets next week: Sandro
Lee Feigenbaum: regrets next week: Sandro ←
14:06:24 <sandro> yep
Sandro Hawke: yep ←
14:06:27 <sandro> :-)
Sandro Hawke: :-) ←
14:06:55 <pgearon> LeeF: any other admin business to take care of?
Lee Feigenbaum: any other admin business to take care of? ←
14:07:03 <LeeF> topic: LET/Assignment
14:07:16 <LeeF> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-dawg/2010AprJun/0397.html
Lee Feigenbaum: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-dawg/2010AprJun/0397.html ←
14:07:23 <chimezie> Zakim, mute me
Chimezie Ogbuji: Zakim, mute me ←
14:07:23 <Zakim> Chimezie_Ogbuji should now be muted
Zakim IRC Bot: Chimezie_Ogbuji should now be muted ←
14:08:14 <pgearon> LeeF: LET syntactically easy way to bind values, esp for use in a FILTER
Lee Feigenbaum: LET syntactically easy way to bind values, esp for use in a FILTER ←
14:08:44 <pgearon> LeeF: one of the most popular features to miss the cut when we decided on features for SPARQL 1.1
Lee Feigenbaum: one of the most popular features to miss the cut when we decided on features for SPARQL 1.1 ←
14:09:34 <pgearon> LeeF: strong response from a few organizations, such as TopQuadrant. Also from working group members like pgearon and AndyS that it ought to be done, and can be easily implemented
Lee Feigenbaum: strong response from a few organizations, such as TopQuadrant. Also from working group members like pgearon and AndyS that it ought to be done, and can be easily implemented ←
14:10:09 <pgearon> LeeF: alternative of subquery with projected expression will work, but is complex
Lee Feigenbaum: alternative of subquery with projected expression will work, but is complex ←
14:10:37 <pgearon> LeeF: last F2F, some people thought it would be a bad idea, some thought it should be included
Lee Feigenbaum: last F2F, some people thought it would be a bad idea, some thought it should be included ←
14:10:59 <ivan> zakim, dial ivan-voip
Ivan Herman: zakim, dial ivan-voip ←
14:10:59 <Zakim> ok, ivan; the call is being made
Zakim IRC Bot: ok, ivan; the call is being made ←
14:11:01 <Zakim> +Ivan
Zakim IRC Bot: +Ivan ←
14:11:08 <pgearon> LeeF: AndyS as an editor said that semantically this is easy, because it fit into algebra easily
Lee Feigenbaum: AndyS as an editor said that semantically this is easy, because it fit into algebra easily ←
14:11:43 <pgearon> LeeF: several implementations now support LET
Lee Feigenbaum: several implementations now support LET ←
14:12:04 <AndyS> Yes - no new algebra - it can be defn'ed just by exposing (extend) used in SELECT expressions directly.
Andy Seaborne: Yes - no new algebra - it can be defn'ed just by exposing (extend) used in SELECT expressions directly. ←
14:12:35 <chimezie> Zakim, unmute me
Chimezie Ogbuji: Zakim, unmute me ←
14:12:35 <Zakim> Chimezie_Ogbuji should no longer be muted
Zakim IRC Bot: Chimezie_Ogbuji should no longer be muted ←
14:12:37 <pgearon> LeeF: anyone want to speak about it?
Lee Feigenbaum: anyone want to speak about it? ←
14:12:41 <SteveH> I think I've spoken about it enough - it looks too much like assignment
Steve Harris: I think I've spoken about it enough - it looks too much like assignment ←
14:13:56 <pgearon> Chimezie_Ogbuji: is this just a column extension? AndyS: yes, that's one implementation
Chimezie Ogbuji: is this just a column extension? AndyS: yes, that's one implementation ←
14:14:19 <pgearon> SteveH: LET looks like a procedural feature.
Steve Harris: LET looks like a procedural feature. ←
14:14:34 <pgearon> SteveH: functionality, it's just like a subselect
Steve Harris: functionality, it's just like a subselect ←
14:14:56 <pgearon> SteveH: if it's a popular feature, then why not? IT makes me feel a little queasy :-)
Steve Harris: if it's a popular feature, then why not? IT makes me feel a little queasy :-) ←
14:15:08 <pgearon> +q
+q ←
14:15:17 <SteveH> if it wasn't called LET I'd be much less unhappy, FWIW
Steve Harris: if it wasn't called LET I'd be much less unhappy, FWIW ←
14:15:23 <pgearon> q-
q- ←
14:15:23 <chimezie> I sympathize for the fact that it makes the language seem very procedural
Chimezie Ogbuji: I sympathize for the fact that it makes the language seem very procedural ←
14:15:48 <LeeF> pgearon: i think not having LET is a similar mistake to SPARQL 1.0 not having a negation operation
Paul Gearon: i think not having LET is a similar mistake to SPARQL 1.0 not having a negation operation [ Scribe Assist by Lee Feigenbaum ] ←
14:15:57 <LeeF> ... possible to do things, but complicated and confusing for users
Lee Feigenbaum: ... possible to do things, but complicated and confusing for users ←
14:16:14 <SteveH> there are good historical reasons why S1.0 had no MINUS
Steve Harris: there are good historical reasons why S1.0 had no MINUS ←
14:16:29 <sandro> +1 paul it's an important feature that'll be useful to a lot of people
Sandro Hawke: +1 paul it's an important feature that'll be useful to a lot of people ←
14:17:10 <pgearon> LeeF: do we want to include this at all, before figuring out the details
Lee Feigenbaum: do we want to include this at all, before figuring out the details ←
14:17:55 <chimezie> s/sympathize for/sympathize with
Chimezie Ogbuji: s/sympathize for/sympathize with ←
14:17:55 <chimezie> pgearon: we would be making the same mistake as we did in not including MINUS originally in SPARQL 1.0
Paul Gearon: we would be making the same mistake as we did in not including MINUS originally in SPARQL 1.0 [ Scribe Assist by Chimezie Ogbuji ] ←
14:18:02 <pgearon> LeeF: any more comments before straw polling?
Lee Feigenbaum: any more comments before straw polling? ←
14:18:08 <pgearon> no response
no response ←
14:19:34 <pgearon> LeeF: strawpoll - choice 1: do not include LET/assignment. choice 2: include LET as a keyword, choice 3: include with other keyword (such as BIND)
Lee Feigenbaum: strawpoll - choice 1: do not include LET/assignment. choice 2: include LET as a keyword, choice 3: include with other keyword (such as BIND) ←
14:19:40 <LeeF> straw poll: (1) do not include LET/assignment ("do nothing"), (2) include with LET as keyword ("LET"), (3) include with other keyword ("other")
Lee Feigenbaum: straw poll: (1) do not include LET/assignment ("do nothing"), (2) include with LET as keyword ("LET"), (3) include with other keyword ("other") ←
14:19:52 <SteveH> one advantage of a new keyword is that it wont break anyone's implementation
Steve Harris: one advantage of a new keyword is that it wont break anyone's implementation ←
14:20:24 <ivan> 2
Ivan Herman: 2 ←
14:20:25 <kasei> I imagine 2.5 isn't a valid option? I don't have a preference on the keyword...
Gregory Williams: I imagine 2.5 isn't a valid option? I don't have a preference on the keyword... ←
14:20:27 <chimezie> 3
Chimezie Ogbuji: 3 ←
14:20:29 <pgearon> 2
2 ←
14:20:33 <MattPerry> 3
Matthew Perry: 3 ←
14:20:35 <OlivierCorby> 1
Olivier Corby: 1 ←
14:20:39 <SteveH> 1 or 3
Steve Harris: 1 or 3 ←
14:20:41 <sandro> 3
Sandro Hawke: 3 ←
14:20:45 <bglimm> 2 or 3
Birte Glimm: 2 or 3 ←
14:20:50 <AndyS> 2
Andy Seaborne: 2 ←
14:20:54 <NicholasH> 3
14:20:58 <LeeF> 0
Lee Feigenbaum: 0 ←
14:21:12 <sandro> wow, what an awkward split
Sandro Hawke: wow, what an awkward split ←
14:21:13 <AndyS> Or no keyword : ?x := ?y+1
Andy Seaborne: Or no keyword : ?x := ?y+1 ←
14:21:41 <pgearon> LeeF: strong feeling that we ought to do *something* (so not 1)
Lee Feigenbaum: strong feeling that we ought to do *something* (so not 1) ←
14:22:14 <pgearon> OlivierCorby: SPARQL is a graph matching language. Would prefer a simpler language with simpler principles
Olivier Corby: SPARQL is a graph matching language. Would prefer a simpler language with simpler principles ←
14:22:38 <pgearon> LeeF: this is similar to SteveH's concerns
Lee Feigenbaum: this is similar to SteveH's concerns ←
14:22:40 <pgearon> +q
+q ←
14:22:44 <LeeF> ack pgearon
Lee Feigenbaum: ack pgearon ←
14:23:20 <NicholasH> LET is very retro :)
Nicholas Humfrey: LET is very retro :) ←
14:23:25 <LeeF> q+
Lee Feigenbaum: q+ ←
14:23:27 <SteveH> and misleading
Steve Harris: and misleading ←
14:23:33 <LeeF> ack me
Lee Feigenbaum: ack me ←
14:24:40 <pgearon> both AndyS and myself seem happy to break LET. In my case this is because LET is not any kind of a standard
both AndyS and myself seem happy to break LET. In my case this is because LET is not any kind of a standard ←
14:25:42 <pgearon> chimezie: if we choose a different keyword, then wouldn't it have identical semantics to current implementations of LET?
Chimezie Ogbuji: if we choose a different keyword, then wouldn't it have identical semantics to current implementations of LET? ←
14:26:03 <SteveH> pgearon, it doesn't seem like any 2 people have implemented it the same way
Steve Harris: pgearon, it doesn't seem like any 2 people have implemented it the same way ←
14:26:15 <SteveH> [sorry, misread]
Steve Harris: [sorry, misread] ←
14:26:16 <AndyS> The most common use of LET is to introduce a new var name. That's the case that matters to me (and, I believe, my users)
Andy Seaborne: The most common use of LET is to introduce a new var name. That's the case that matters to me (and, I believe, my users) ←
14:27:47 <pgearon> LeeF: for each of 3 options, asking if anyone feels strongly enough to register a formal objection if the group goes that way
Lee Feigenbaum: for each of 3 options, asking if anyone feels strongly enough to register a formal objection if the group goes that way ←
14:28:45 <pgearon> AndyS: as a principle, I'm uncomfortable with this approach
Andy Seaborne: as a principle, I'm uncomfortable with this approach ←
14:28:56 <LeeF> poll: likely to object if the group decides not to include LET/assignment?
Axel Polleres: likely to object if the group decides not to include LET/assignment? [ Scribe Assist by Lee Feigenbaum ] ←
14:29:40 <LeeF> pgearon: potentially, not sure
Paul Gearon: potentially, not sure [ Scribe Assist by Lee Feigenbaum ] ←
14:29:43 <ivan> q+
Ivan Herman: q+ ←
14:29:46 <chimezie> -1 (not likely to)
Chimezie Ogbuji: -1 (not likely to) ←
14:29:48 <LeeF> ack ivan
Lee Feigenbaum: ack ivan ←
14:29:57 <pgearon> LeeF: you don't have to vote here. Just trying to figure out who is likely to object. Want to avoid objections in the future
Lee Feigenbaum: you don't have to vote here. Just trying to figure out who is likely to object. Want to avoid objections in the future ←
14:30:15 <pgearon> Ivan: would TopQuadrant object if LET is not there?
Ivan Herman: would TopQuadrant object if LET is not there? ←
14:30:33 <pgearon> LeeF: yes, TQ indicated that they would register a formal objection
Lee Feigenbaum: yes, TQ indicated that they would register a formal objection ←
14:30:52 <pgearon> Ivan: hope they do not require the keyword LET
Ivan Herman: hope they do not require the keyword LET ←
14:30:58 <SteveH> the last time I spoke to jeremy abut this, he really wanted actual assignment, FWIW
Steve Harris: the last time I spoke to jeremy abut this, he really wanted actual assignment, FWIW ←
14:31:03 <SteveH> that was some time ago though
Steve Harris: that was some time ago though ←
14:31:11 <SteveH> not as in SPARQL LET
Steve Harris: not as in SPARQL LET ←
14:31:15 <pgearon> LeeF: don't know enough about TQ's formal position
Lee Feigenbaum: don't know enough about TQ's formal position ←
14:31:32 <LeeF> poll: likely to object if the group decides to include the LET keyword (option 2 from above)?
Axel Polleres: likely to object if the group decides to include the LET keyword (option 2 from above)? [ Scribe Assist by Lee Feigenbaum ] ←
14:31:37 <pgearon> LeeF: who's likely to object if the keyword LET is included?
Lee Feigenbaum: who's likely to object if the keyword LET is included? ←
14:31:51 <LeeF> (no comments)
Lee Feigenbaum: (no comments) ←
14:31:52 <SteveH> I might, if I have time on my hands
Steve Harris: I might, if I have time on my hands ←
14:31:56 <SteveH> so, not likely
Steve Harris: so, not likely ←
14:32:15 <LeeF> poll: likely to object if the group decides to include the feature with a keyword other than LET (option 3 from above)?
Axel Polleres: likely to object if the group decides to include the feature with a keyword other than LET (option 3 from above)? [ Scribe Assist by Lee Feigenbaum ] ←
14:32:33 <pgearon> resounding silence
resounding silence ←
14:33:02 <OlivierCorby> lambda x ...
Olivier Corby: lambda x ... ←
14:33:19 <pgearon> LeeF: to repeat, this does NOT preclude anyone from objecting or not objecting in the future. (this was just an indication)
Lee Feigenbaum: to repeat, this does NOT preclude anyone from objecting or not objecting in the future. (this was just an indication) ←
14:33:19 <SteveH> AndyS, not so, he cornered me for several hours at the east coast F2F
Steve Harris: AndyS, not so, he cornered me for several hours at the east coast F2F ←
14:33:34 <SteveH> EXTEND?
Steve Harris: EXTEND? ←
14:33:39 <SteveH> ADD
Steve Harris: ADD ←
14:33:47 <SteveH> EXTRA...
Steve Harris: EXTRA... ←
14:33:55 <SteveH> VALUE()
Steve Harris: VALUE() ←
14:33:58 <SteveH> whatever really
Steve Harris: whatever really ←
14:34:00 <pgearon> I liked AndyS's no keyword idea (?x := expr)
I liked AndyS's no keyword idea (?x := expr) ←
14:34:06 <SteveH> erk!
Steve Harris: erk! ←
14:34:07 <kasei> ☃
14:34:26 <pgearon> LeeF: I'm glad the snowman came into it :-)
Lee Feigenbaum: I'm glad the snowman came into it :-) ←
14:34:47 <pgearon> LeeF: support for each keyword?
Lee Feigenbaum: support for each keyword? ←
14:34:54 <LeeF> LET
Lee Feigenbaum: LET ←
14:34:57 <SteveH> -1
Steve Harris: -1 ←
14:35:01 <chimezie> -1
Chimezie Ogbuji: -1 ←
14:35:03 <pgearon> +1
+1 ←
14:35:07 <AndyS> +1
Andy Seaborne: +1 ←
14:35:14 <NicholasH> -1
Nicholas Humfrey: -1 ←
14:35:14 <OlivierCorby> -1
Olivier Corby: -1 ←
14:35:18 <MattPerry> -1
Matthew Perry: -1 ←
14:35:30 <LeeF> BIND
Lee Feigenbaum: BIND ←
14:35:40 <SteveH> +0.5
Steve Harris: +0.5 ←
14:35:47 <OlivierCorby> -1
Olivier Corby: -1 ←
14:35:49 <NicholasH> heh, yeah +0.5
Nicholas Humfrey: heh, yeah +0.5 ←
14:35:49 <MattPerry> +1
Matthew Perry: +1 ←
14:35:54 <kasei> +1
Gregory Williams: +1 ←
14:35:55 <bglimm> +1
Birte Glimm: +1 ←
14:36:15 <LeeF> SET
Lee Feigenbaum: SET ←
14:36:17 <pgearon> +1
+1 ←
14:36:20 <OlivierCorby> -1
Olivier Corby: -1 ←
14:36:21 <SteveH> -1
Steve Harris: -1 ←
14:36:23 <chimezie> -1
Chimezie Ogbuji: -1 ←
14:36:25 <MattPerry> -1
Matthew Perry: -1 ←
14:36:31 <NicholasH> -1
Nicholas Humfrey: -1 ←
14:36:42 <LeeF> EXTEND
Lee Feigenbaum: EXTEND ←
14:36:45 <SteveH> +1
Steve Harris: +1 ←
14:36:45 <chimezie> +1
Chimezie Ogbuji: +1 ←
14:36:45 <pgearon> -1
-1 ←
14:36:46 <AndyS> -1
Andy Seaborne: -1 ←
14:36:47 <OlivierCorby> -1
Olivier Corby: -1 ←
14:36:48 <ivan> -1
Ivan Herman: -1 ←
14:36:55 <NicholasH> 0
14:37:06 <LeeF> ADD
Lee Feigenbaum: ADD ←
14:37:10 <AndyS> -1
Andy Seaborne: -1 ←
14:37:11 <SteveH> -1
Steve Harris: -1 ←
14:37:11 <pgearon> -1
-1 ←
14:37:12 <OlivierCorby> -1
Olivier Corby: -1 ←
14:37:13 <ivan> -1
Ivan Herman: -1 ←
14:37:13 <MattPerry> -1
Matthew Perry: -1 ←
14:37:13 <chimezie> -1
Chimezie Ogbuji: -1 ←
14:37:20 <NicholasH> -1
Nicholas Humfrey: -1 ←
14:37:30 <LeeF> EXTRA
Lee Feigenbaum: EXTRA ←
14:37:32 <pgearon> -1
-1 ←
14:37:33 <chimezie> -1
Chimezie Ogbuji: -1 ←
14:37:34 <AndyS> -1
Andy Seaborne: -1 ←
14:37:36 <OlivierCorby> -1
Olivier Corby: -1 ←
14:37:36 <MattPerry> -1
Matthew Perry: -1 ←
14:37:37 <ivan> -1
Ivan Herman: -1 ←
14:37:40 <LeeF> VALUE
Lee Feigenbaum: VALUE ←
14:37:43 <chimezie> -1
Chimezie Ogbuji: -1 ←
14:37:45 <MattPerry> -1
Matthew Perry: -1 ←
14:37:45 <SteveH> +0.5
Steve Harris: +0.5 ←
14:37:46 <OlivierCorby> -1
Olivier Corby: -1 ←
14:37:47 <AndyS> -1
Andy Seaborne: -1 ←
14:37:49 <pgearon> -1
-1 ←
14:37:54 <NicholasH> What about MAP?
Nicholas Humfrey: What about MAP? ←
14:38:01 <LeeF> MAP
Lee Feigenbaum: MAP ←
14:38:04 <pgearon> -1
-1 ←
14:38:06 <SteveH> +1
Steve Harris: +1 ←
14:38:09 <AndyS> -1
Andy Seaborne: -1 ←
14:38:10 <OlivierCorby> -1
Olivier Corby: -1 ←
14:38:12 <MattPerry> -1
Matthew Perry: -1 ←
14:38:13 <chimezie> +1
Chimezie Ogbuji: +1 ←
14:38:13 <NicholasH> +1
Nicholas Humfrey: +1 ←
14:38:29 <LeeF> NO KEYWORD, JUST A := OPERATOR
Lee Feigenbaum: NO KEYWORD, JUST A := OPERATOR ←
14:38:31 <SteveH> -1
Steve Harris: -1 ←
14:38:33 <chimezie> -1
Chimezie Ogbuji: -1 ←
14:38:35 <NicholasH> -1
Nicholas Humfrey: -1 ←
14:38:36 <pgearon> +1
+1 ←
14:38:36 <OlivierCorby> -1
Olivier Corby: -1 ←
14:38:36 <MattPerry> -1
Matthew Perry: -1 ←
14:38:38 <AndyS> +0.5
Andy Seaborne: +0.5 ←
14:38:57 <sandro> [ please put me down as a +1 for BIND ]
Sandro Hawke: [ please put me down as a +1 for BIND ] ←
14:39:37 <pgearon> SteveH: noted that we haven't discussed the semantics at all
Steve Harris: noted that we haven't discussed the semantics at all ←
14:40:16 <SteveH> aliases v's adding another "column" might sway people one way or the other
Steve Harris: aliases v's adding another "column" might sway people one way or the other ←
14:40:29 <SteveH> but it's probably not important
Steve Harris: but it's probably not important ←
14:40:53 <pgearon> LeeF: hoping to get through whether or not to include the feature before taking on the issues of semantics. Hoping that there aren't any semantics issues that we need to be considering just yet
Lee Feigenbaum: hoping to get through whether or not to include the feature before taking on the issues of semantics. Hoping that there aren't any semantics issues that we need to be considering just yet ←
14:40:54 <SteveH> can we hear from people who didn't like BIND? maybe there's something we've not thought of
Steve Harris: can we hear from people who didn't like BIND? maybe there's something we've not thought of ←
14:41:05 <SteveH> it's only been on the table for 20 mins
Steve Harris: it's only been on the table for 20 mins ←
14:42:03 <SteveH> +1 to concerns over scoping rules
Steve Harris: +1 to concerns over scoping rules ←
14:42:11 <pgearon> Olivier: doesn't like the feature at all. But if it were included would like LET
Olivier Corby: doesn't like the feature at all. But if it were included would like LET ←
14:42:28 <pgearon> s/Olivier/OlivierCorby/
s/Olivier/OlivierCorby/ ←
14:42:47 <pgearon> OlivierCorby: bind is already complex. This would make it moreso
Olivier Corby: bind is already complex. This would make it moreso ←
14:42:59 <LeeF> PROPOSED: SPARQL 1.1 Query includes the http://www.w3.org/2009/sparql/wiki/Feature:Assignment feature using a keyword of BIND
PROPOSED: SPARQL 1.1 Query includes the http://www.w3.org/2009/sparql/wiki/Feature:Assignment feature using a keyword of BIND ←
14:43:00 <pgearon> s/bind/binding/
s/bind/binding/ ←
14:43:42 <SteveH> the wording of Feature:Assignment is exactly the kind of thing that's logically nasty
Steve Harris: the wording of Feature:Assignment is exactly the kind of thing that's logically nasty ←
14:43:50 <SteveH> it doesn't really speak to extending the binding table
Steve Harris: it doesn't really speak to extending the binding table ←
14:43:56 <chimezie> The more I think about it, it seems that not settling on the semantics before we conclude on a keyword might be dangerous
Chimezie Ogbuji: The more I think about it, it seems that not settling on the semantics before we conclude on a keyword might be dangerous ←
14:44:04 <OlivierCorby> I mean scoping rules for variables are already complex with different rules for pattern, exists, minus and now let
Olivier Corby: I mean scoping rules for variables are already complex with different rules for pattern, exists, minus and now let ←
14:44:18 <pgearon> LeeF: would like to put out a question on this on the mailing list, get comments, and address it next week. Unfortunately, this often results in silence on the mailing list
Lee Feigenbaum: would like to put out a question on this on the mailing list, get comments, and address it next week. Unfortunately, this often results in silence on the mailing list ←
14:45:42 <AndyS> q+
Andy Seaborne: q+ ←
14:45:45 <pgearon> LeeF: previously suggested test cases were more about contrasting subselect vs. LET
Lee Feigenbaum: previously suggested test cases were more about contrasting subselect vs. LET ←
14:45:45 <LeeF> ack AndyS
Lee Feigenbaum: ack AndyS ←
14:46:08 <pgearon> AndyS: why don't we get each of the implementors to write up what they've done
Andy Seaborne: why don't we get each of the implementors to write up what they've done ←
14:47:11 <pgearon> LeeF: anyone want to take the lead in trying to create test cases?
Lee Feigenbaum: anyone want to take the lead in trying to create test cases? ←
14:47:12 <AndyS> I have test cases. I can sort through them to pull out the core ones
Andy Seaborne: I have test cases. I can sort through them to pull out the core ones ←
14:47:57 <SteveH> I'd be more interested in seeing descriptions of the algebraic operations than testcases
Steve Harris: I'd be more interested in seeing descriptions of the algebraic operations than testcases ←
14:47:57 <pgearon> LeeF: get AndyS, pgearon, and LeeF to write up what we do in our implementations
Lee Feigenbaum: get AndyS, pgearon, and LeeF to write up what we do in our implementations ←
14:48:49 <pgearon> LeeF: leaving the LET/assignment topic for today
Lee Feigenbaum: leaving the LET/assignment topic for today ←
14:48:50 <AndyS> http://www.w3.org/2009/sparql/docs/query-1.1/rq25.xml#defn_extend
Andy Seaborne: http://www.w3.org/2009/sparql/docs/query-1.1/rq25.xml#defn_extend ←
14:48:51 <LeeF> ACTION: Lee to write-up Glitter treatment of LET
ACTION: Lee to write-up Glitter treatment of LET ←
14:48:51 <trackbot> Created ACTION-277 - Write-up Glitter treatment of LET [on Lee Feigenbaum - due 2010-07-13].
Trackbot IRC Bot: Created ACTION-277 - Write-up Glitter treatment of LET [on Lee Feigenbaum - due 2010-07-13]. ←
14:49:00 <LeeF> ACTION: Andy to write-up ARQ treatment of LET
ACTION: Andy to write-up ARQ treatment of LET ←
14:49:00 <trackbot> Created ACTION-278 - Write-up ARQ treatment of LET [on Andy Seaborne - due 2010-07-13].
Trackbot IRC Bot: Created ACTION-278 - Write-up ARQ treatment of LET [on Andy Seaborne - due 2010-07-13]. ←
14:49:06 <LeeF> ACTION: Paul to write-up Mulgara treatment of LET
ACTION: Paul to write-up Mulgara treatment of LET ←
14:49:06 <trackbot> Created ACTION-279 - Write-up Mulgara treatment of LET [on Paul Gearon - due 2010-07-13].
Trackbot IRC Bot: Created ACTION-279 - Write-up Mulgara treatment of LET [on Paul Gearon - due 2010-07-13]. ←
14:49:50 <pgearon> LeeF: not going to discuss test cases now, as we only have 10 minutes left
Lee Feigenbaum: not going to discuss test cases now, as we only have 10 minutes left ←
14:50:06 <pgearon> LeeF: continue test case discussion on the mailing list
Lee Feigenbaum: continue test case discussion on the mailing list ←
14:50:39 <pgearon> LeeF: want to discuss and hopefully approve test cases next week. Please get familiar with them before the next meeting
Lee Feigenbaum: want to discuss and hopefully approve test cases next week. Please get familiar with them before the next meeting ←
14:51:16 <pgearon> AndyS: what are we approving exactly? The last time around this would handled differently with CVS
Andy Seaborne: what are we approving exactly? The last time around this would handled differently with CVS ←
14:51:57 <pgearon> LeeF: hoping to approving them modulo getting the syntax right, but if that's not good enough then happy to do it more formally
Lee Feigenbaum: hoping to approving them modulo getting the syntax right, but if that's not good enough then happy to do it more formally ←
14:52:15 <pgearon> +q
+q ←
14:52:19 <LeeF> ack pgearon
Lee Feigenbaum: ack pgearon ←
14:53:59 <pgearon> pgearon: concerned that not having all tests syntactically correct, and checked into CVS in their final form, might be OK in the early stages, but could lead to a procedural mess towards the end
Paul Gearon: concerned that not having all tests syntactically correct, and checked into CVS in their final form, might be OK in the early stages, but could lead to a procedural mess towards the end ←
14:54:35 <pgearon> LeeF: OK, let's look at getting them checked into CVS in their final form before approving
Lee Feigenbaum: OK, let's look at getting them checked into CVS in their final form before approving ←
14:54:43 <pgearon> LeeF: other business?
Lee Feigenbaum: other business? ←
14:54:58 <SteveH> bye all
Steve Harris: bye all ←
14:54:59 <Zakim> -Chimezie_Ogbuji
Zakim IRC Bot: -Chimezie_Ogbuji ←
14:55:00 <ivan> zakim, drop me
Ivan Herman: zakim, drop me ←
14:55:00 <Zakim> -Lee_Feigenbaum
Zakim IRC Bot: -Lee_Feigenbaum ←
14:55:00 <Zakim> Ivan is being disconnected
Zakim IRC Bot: Ivan is being disconnected ←
14:55:01 <MattPerry> bye
Matthew Perry: bye ←
14:55:01 <Zakim> -bglimm
Zakim IRC Bot: -bglimm ←
14:55:01 <Zakim> -Ivan
Zakim IRC Bot: -Ivan ←
14:55:04 <Zakim> -OlivierCorby
Zakim IRC Bot: -OlivierCorby ←
14:55:05 <NicholasH> bye bye!
Nicholas Humfrey: bye bye! ←
14:55:05 <Zakim> -SteveH
Zakim IRC Bot: -SteveH ←
14:55:06 <Zakim> -MattPerry
Zakim IRC Bot: -MattPerry ←
14:55:08 <Zakim> -NicholasH
Zakim IRC Bot: -NicholasH ←
14:55:11 <LeeF> paul, thanks very much for scribing again
Lee Feigenbaum: paul, thanks very much for scribing again ←
14:55:13 <Zakim> -Sandro
Zakim IRC Bot: -Sandro ←
14:55:15 <pgearon> np
np ←
14:55:19 <LeeF> RRSAgent, make logs world
Lee Feigenbaum: RRSAgent, make logs world ←
14:55:39 <Zakim> -AndyS
Zakim IRC Bot: -AndyS ←
14:55:49 <Zakim> -kasei
Zakim IRC Bot: -kasei ←
14:55:51 <Zakim> -pgearon
Zakim IRC Bot: -pgearon ←
14:55:51 <Zakim> SW_(SPARQL)10:00AM has ended
Zakim IRC Bot: SW_(SPARQL)10:00AM has ended ←
14:55:51 <NicholasH> I don't mind doing some scribing
Nicholas Humfrey: I don't mind doing some scribing ←
14:55:52 <Zakim> Attendees were Lee_Feigenbaum, AndyS, SteveH, kasei, pgearon, MattPerry, +33.4.92.38.aaaa, OlivierCorby, Sandro, bglimm, NicholasH, Chimezie_Ogbuji, Ivan
Zakim IRC Bot: Attendees were Lee_Feigenbaum, AndyS, SteveH, kasei, pgearon, MattPerry, +33.4.92.38.aaaa, OlivierCorby, Sandro, bglimm, NicholasH, Chimezie_Ogbuji, Ivan ←
14:56:11 <NicholasH> but I don't recognise everyone's voices at the moment
Nicholas Humfrey: but I don't recognise everyone's voices at the moment ←
Formatted by CommonScribe
This revision (#1) generated 2010-07-07 17:46:18 UTC by 'lfeigenb', comments: None