<kasei> Present: AxelPolleres, Sandro, MattPerry, kasei, AndyS, pgearon, chimezie, bglimm, ericP
14:53:12 <RRSAgent> logging to http://www.w3.org/2012/02/14-sparql-irc
RRSAgent IRC Bot: logging to http://www.w3.org/2012/02/14-sparql-irc ←
14:53:14 <trackbot> RRSAgent, make logs world
Trackbot IRC Bot: RRSAgent, make logs world ←
14:53:16 <trackbot> Zakim, this will be 77277
Trackbot IRC Bot: Zakim, this will be 77277 ←
14:53:16 <Zakim> ok, trackbot; I see SW_(SPARQL)10:00AM scheduled to start in 7 minutes
Zakim IRC Bot: ok, trackbot; I see SW_(SPARQL)10:00AM scheduled to start in 7 minutes ←
14:53:17 <trackbot> Meeting: SPARQL Working Group Teleconference
14:53:17 <trackbot> Date: 14 February 2012
14:55:21 <AxelPolleres> hmmm, it seems my agenda mail didn't make it through.
Axel Polleres: hmmm, it seems my agenda mail didn't make it through. ←
14:55:43 <AndyS> trackbot, start meeting
Andy Seaborne: trackbot, start meeting ←
14:55:45 <trackbot> RRSAgent, make logs world
Trackbot IRC Bot: RRSAgent, make logs world ←
14:55:47 <trackbot> Zakim, this will be 77277
Trackbot IRC Bot: Zakim, this will be 77277 ←
14:55:48 <Zakim> ok, trackbot; I see SW_(SPARQL)10:00AM scheduled to start in 5 minutes
Zakim IRC Bot: ok, trackbot; I see SW_(SPARQL)10:00AM scheduled to start in 5 minutes ←
14:55:48 <trackbot> Meeting: SPARQL Working Group Teleconference
14:55:49 <trackbot> Date: 14 February 2012
14:55:53 <AxelPolleres> anyways, we'll ocntinue at last week's agenda, apologies.
Axel Polleres: anyways, we'll ocntinue at last week's agenda, apologies. ←
14:56:00 <AndyS> zakim, this is 77277
Andy Seaborne: zakim, this is 77277 ←
14:56:00 <Zakim> AndyS, I see SW_(SPARQL)10:00AM in the schedule but not yet started. Perhaps you mean "this will be 77277".
Zakim IRC Bot: AndyS, I see SW_(SPARQL)10:00AM in the schedule but not yet started. Perhaps you mean "this will be 77277". ←
14:56:07 <AxelPolleres> agenda: http://www.w3.org/2009/sparql/wiki/Agenda-2012-02-07 (cont'd)
14:56:19 <AxelPolleres> chair: axel polleres
14:57:00 <AxelPolleres> regrets: carlos, olivier, lee
14:58:47 <Zakim> SW_(SPARQL)10:00AM has now started
Zakim IRC Bot: SW_(SPARQL)10:00AM has now started ←
15:00:23 <Zakim> +Sandro
Zakim IRC Bot: +Sandro ←
15:00:43 <Zakim> +MattPerry
Zakim IRC Bot: +MattPerry ←
15:01:00 <Zakim> +kasei
Zakim IRC Bot: +kasei ←
15:01:24 <Zakim> +??P16
Zakim IRC Bot: +??P16 ←
15:01:41 <AndyS> zakim, ??P16 is me
Andy Seaborne: zakim, ??P16 is me ←
15:01:41 <Zakim> +AndyS; got it
Zakim IRC Bot: +AndyS; got it ←
15:01:50 <AxelPolleres> steve, yes, we'll find someone.
Axel Polleres: steve, yes, we'll find someone. ←
15:02:08 <ericP> AxelPolleres, I inadvertently responded to DBooth's SPARQL LC comment while responding to the portion of it directed at the RDF WG
Eric Prud'hommeaux: AxelPolleres, I inadvertently responded to DBooth's SPARQL LC comment while responding to the portion of it directed at the RDF WG ←
15:02:16 <ericP> need any follow-up from me on that?
Eric Prud'hommeaux: need any follow-up from me on that? ←
15:02:40 <AxelPolleres> hmmm, eric good question, can you point me to the response?
Axel Polleres: hmmm, eric good question, can you point me to the response? ←
15:02:43 <AxelPolleres> (link)
Axel Polleres: (link) ←
15:03:14 <AxelPolleres> agendum: JP-4 how to proceed
Axel Polleres: agendum: JP-4 how to proceed ←
15:03:46 <AxelPolleres> agendum: MOVE/COPY test cases
Axel Polleres: agendum: MOVE/COPY test cases ←
15:03:55 <AxelPolleres> agendum: GSP status
Axel Polleres: agendum: GSP status ←
15:04:18 <AxelPolleres> agendum: TSV/CSV status
Axel Polleres: agendum: TSV/CSV status ←
15:04:34 <AxelPolleres> agendum: further comments & ACTIONS
Axel Polleres: agendum: further comments & ACTIONS ←
15:05:13 <AxelPolleres> anybody could scribe?
Axel Polleres: anybody could scribe? ←
15:05:16 <AndyS> I can't scribe (bad keyboard)
Andy Seaborne: I can't scribe (bad keyboard) ←
15:05:40 <kasei> I can
Gregory Williams: I can ←
15:05:47 <kasei> scribenick: kasei
(Scribe set to Gregory Williams)
15:05:56 <Zakim> +pgearon
Zakim IRC Bot: +pgearon ←
15:05:57 <AxelPolleres> scribe: Greg
15:06:15 <AxelPolleres> topic: admin
15:06:22 <Zakim> +chimezie
Zakim IRC Bot: +chimezie ←
15:06:39 <AxelPolleres> PROPOSED: approve minutes at http://www.w3.org/2009/sparql/meeting/2012-02-07
PROPOSED: approve minutes at http://www.w3.org/2009/sparql/meeting/2012-02-07 ←
15:07:01 <AxelPolleres> RESOLVED: approve minutes at http://www.w3.org/2009/sparql/meeting/2012-02-07
RESOLVED: approve minutes at http://www.w3.org/2009/sparql/meeting/2012-02-07 ←
15:07:23 <kasei> AxelPolleres: any news from the RDF WG?
Axel Polleres: any news from the RDF WG? ←
15:07:31 <AndyS> No news from RDF WG.
Andy Seaborne: No news from RDF WG. ←
15:07:37 <kasei> AndyS: No news.
Andy Seaborne: No news. ←
15:07:47 <AxelPolleres> topic: comment JP-4
15:08:08 <AxelPolleres> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-dawg/2012JanMar/0153.html
Axel Polleres: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-dawg/2012JanMar/0153.html ←
15:08:18 <kasei> AxelPolleres: 3 options on how to proceed
Axel Polleres: 3 options on how to proceed ←
15:08:26 <kasei> ... several opinions on the mailing list.
... several opinions on the mailing list. ←
15:08:36 <kasei> ... to summarize:
... to summarize: ←
15:08:52 <kasei> ... option 1: keeping grammar as is and try to explain which DISTINCT path subqueries can be optimized
... option 1: keeping grammar as is and try to explain which DISTINCT path subqueries can be optimized ←
15:09:18 <kasei> ... trying to find some equivalence between our current semantics and the proposed semantics in the cited paper
... trying to find some equivalence between our current semantics and the proposed semantics in the cited paper ←
15:09:31 <kasei> ... option 2: adding DISTINCT() around path expressions
... option 2: adding DISTINCT() around path expressions ←
15:09:40 <AxelPolleres> DISTINCT(:p*)
Axel Polleres: DISTINCT(:p*) ←
15:09:59 <kasei> ... would require adding to the grammar and another LC round
... would require adding to the grammar and another LC round ←
15:10:10 <kasei> ... not sure how difficult it would be to define the semantics for this.
... not sure how difficult it would be to define the semantics for this. ←
15:10:24 <kasei> ... AndyS wrote a mail about possible design choices for this option.
... AndyS wrote a mail about possible design choices for this option. ←
15:10:49 <kasei> ... option 3: leave things as they are and point out possible complexities of DISTINCT, optimizations.
... option 3: leave things as they are and point out possible complexities of DISTINCT, optimizations. ←
15:11:11 <kasei> ... orthogonal issue is whether we should mark property paths as informative.
... orthogonal issue is whether we should mark property paths as informative. ←
15:11:28 <kasei> ... Birte suggested making it optional. I think this would also require another LC.
... Birte suggested making it optional. I think this would also require another LC. ←
15:11:34 <ericP> AxelPolleres, re: multi-line comments my response <http://www.w3.org/mid/20120213170048.GD20875@w3.org> begat DBooth's conditional satisfaction <http://www.w3.org/mid/1329157325.2250.129901.camel@dbooth-laptop>
Eric Prud'hommeaux: AxelPolleres, re: multi-line comments my response <http://www.w3.org/mid/20120213170048.GD20875@w3.org> begat DBooth's conditional satisfaction <http://www.w3.org/mid/1329157325.2250.129901.camel@dbooth-laptop> ←
15:11:38 <AxelPolleres> q?
Axel Polleres: q? ←
15:12:11 <kasei> ... strawpoll?
... strawpoll? ←
15:12:17 <kasei> 3
3 ←
15:12:25 <AxelPolleres> strawpoll 1/2/3 for any of these options?
Axel Polleres: strawpoll 1/2/3 for any of these options? ←
15:12:39 <AxelPolleres> 2, if feasible
Axel Polleres: 2, if feasible ←
15:12:42 <MattPerry> 2
Matthew Perry: 2 ←
15:12:51 <AndyS> 2.1 then 3 -- expect 3 as the outcome due to time.
Andy Seaborne: 2.1 then 3 -- expect 3 as the outcome due to time. ←
15:12:57 <kasei> sandro: afraid we don't have a quorum.
Sandro Hawke: afraid we don't have a quorum. ←
15:13:09 <kasei> AxelPolleres: perhaps we can reach concensus among those on the call today.
Axel Polleres: perhaps we can reach concensus among those on the call today. ←
15:13:21 <pgearon> I haven't had time to properly consider… but I think 2
Paul Gearon: I haven't had time to properly consider… but I think 2 ←
15:14:06 <AxelPolleres> 4 x Option 2, 1 x Option 3, nobody for Option 1.
Axel Polleres: 4 x Option 2, 1 x Option 3, nobody for Option 1. ←
15:14:11 <AndyS> Where are we regarding timescale for WG? (Sandro? Axel?)
Andy Seaborne: Where are we regarding timescale for WG? (Sandro? Axel?) ←
15:14:18 <kasei> AxelPolleres: I think that probably rules out option 1.
Axel Polleres: I think that probably rules out option 1. ←
15:14:38 <kasei> ... we should discuss if we go for option 2, can we afford the new timeline?
... we should discuss if we go for option 2, can we afford the new timeline? ←
15:14:46 <kasei> ... we still have some documents which need to go to LC.
... we still have some documents which need to go to LC. ←
15:15:00 <kasei> ... graph store protocol and TSV/CSV documents.
... graph store protocol and TSV/CSV documents. ←
15:15:20 <kasei> ... we could put the query document along with those for another LC.
... we could put the query document along with those for another LC. ←
15:15:31 <kasei> ... we definitly have to go fast.
... we definitly have to go fast. ←
15:16:05 <kasei> AxelPolleres: for option 2, can you summarize the design choices?
Axel Polleres: for option 2, can you summarize the design choices? ←
15:16:21 <Zakim> +??P24
Zakim IRC Bot: +??P24 ←
15:16:30 <bglimm> Zakim, ??P24 is me
Birte Glimm: Zakim, ??P24 is me ←
15:16:30 <Zakim> +bglimm; got it
Zakim IRC Bot: +bglimm; got it ←
15:16:34 <AndyS> ?? it will delay being about to LC GSP and TSV
Andy Seaborne: ?? it will delay being about to LC GSP and TSV ←
15:16:34 <AndyS> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-dawg/2012JanMar/0141.html
Andy Seaborne: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-dawg/2012JanMar/0141.html ←
15:16:40 <bglimm> Zakim, mute me
Birte Glimm: Zakim, mute me ←
15:16:40 <Zakim> bglimm should now be muted
Zakim IRC Bot: bglimm should now be muted ←
15:17:08 <kasei> AndyS: allowing modifier on any part of path to indicate DISTINCT
Andy Seaborne: allowing modifier on any part of path to indicate DISTINCT ←
15:17:19 <kasei> ... or only allowing DISTINCT on the whole path.
... or only allowing DISTINCT on the whole path. ←
15:17:42 <kasei> ... or DISTINCT just modifying the behaviour of +/* operators
... or DISTINCT just modifying the behaviour of +/* operators ←
15:18:09 <kasei> ... or only applying to iri* or iri+, not any other path expression
... or only applying to iri* or iri+, not any other path expression ←
15:18:20 <kasei> AxelPolleres: are any of those choices perferrable? simpler to implement?
Axel Polleres: are any of those choices perferrable? simpler to implement? ←
15:18:43 <kasei> q+
q+ ←
15:19:01 <kasei> AndyS: in my implementation, i'm not targetting things like cliques. more real world data.
Andy Seaborne: in my implementation, i'm not targetting things like cliques. more real world data. ←
15:19:08 <kasei> ... I don't think SPARQL is the right choice for problems like that.
... I don't think SPARQL is the right choice for problems like that. ←
15:19:30 <kasei> ... in terms of spec changes, there's a list of consequences.
... in terms of spec changes, there's a list of consequences. ←
15:19:56 <kasei> ... probably will mean lots of extra material because as soon as we start applying DISTINCT, transformation operators won't apply (re: cardinality)
... probably will mean lots of extra material because as soon as we start applying DISTINCT, transformation operators won't apply (re: cardinality) ←
15:20:42 <kasei> ... If I was implementing it, I'd choose option 2.1
... If I was implementing it, I'd choose option 2.1 ←
15:20:45 <kasei> q-
q- ←
15:20:49 <pgearon> +q
Paul Gearon: +q ←
15:21:28 <kasei> pgearon: is all the complexity around cardinality?
Paul Gearon: is all the complexity around cardinality? ←
15:21:43 <kasei> AndyS: the multiple results are important in relation to aggregates.
Andy Seaborne: the multiple results are important in relation to aggregates. ←
15:22:06 <kasei> ... if you want connectivity, distinctness is probably more convenient.
... if you want connectivity, distinctness is probably more convenient. ←
15:22:19 <kasei> ... not in the same position as xpath: unique over nodes, multiple over values
... not in the same position as xpath: unique over nodes, multiple over values ←
15:22:26 <kasei> ... in RDF, we don't have that distinction.
... in RDF, we don't have that distinction. ←
15:22:47 <kasei> pgearon: what's the use of cardinality? loops are the only case I can see (?)
Paul Gearon: what's the use of cardinality? loops are the only case I can see (?) ←
15:22:53 <AxelPolleres> we had a use case for cardinality in the reply to JP-3, right?
Axel Polleres: we had a use case for cardinality in the reply to JP-3, right? ←
15:22:58 <kasei> AndyS: it's not loops per se. it's different route to the same node.
Andy Seaborne: it's not loops per se. it's different route to the same node. ←
15:23:22 <kasei> ... that's where the complexity cost comes in. the algorithm stops if you go around a loop.
... that's where the complexity cost comes in. the algorithm stops if you go around a loop. ←
15:23:40 <kasei> ... if you have a DAG that crosses itself, you'll get cardinality increases.
... if you have a DAG that crosses itself, you'll get cardinality increases. ←
15:24:14 <kasei> AxelPolleres: other implementors? would you adopt 2.1 or 2.2?
Axel Polleres: other implementors? would you adopt 2.1 or 2.2? ←
15:24:14 <MattPerry> I would lean towards 2.1
Matthew Perry: I would lean towards 2.1 ←
15:24:26 <AndyS> :x :p :a1 . :x :p :a2 . :a1 :p :y . :a2 :p :y . { :x :p{2} ?y } => 2 rows.
Andy Seaborne: :x :p :a1 . :x :p :a2 . :a1 :p :y . :a2 :p :y . { :x :p{2} ?y } => 2 rows. ←
15:24:26 <AxelPolleres> other implementers, would you be willing to adopt 2.1 or 2.2?
Axel Polleres: other implementers, would you be willing to adopt 2.1 or 2.2? ←
15:25:23 <kasei> AxelPolleres: what can we answer to the comment?
Axel Polleres: what can we answer to the comment? ←
15:25:41 <kasei> ... we may be risking an objection.
... we may be risking an objection. ←
15:26:01 <kasei> ... the paper which caused the comment will have lots of visibility.
... the paper which caused the comment will have lots of visibility. ←
15:26:46 <kasei> ... quite a provocative title.
... quite a provocative title. ←
15:26:58 <kasei> AndyS: I don't think the paper's visibility should be a factor in our decision.
Andy Seaborne: I don't think the paper's visibility should be a factor in our decision. ←
15:27:27 <kasei> ... I think it's disappointing in that it doesn't reflect the previous conversation.
... I think it's disappointing in that it doesn't reflect the previous conversation. ←
15:27:43 <kasei> ... from that point of view, it will be difficult to continue a conversation.
... from that point of view, it will be difficult to continue a conversation. ←
15:28:11 <kasei> AxelPolleres: we could try to get towards option 2, but there might be a time problem.
Axel Polleres: we could try to get towards option 2, but there might be a time problem. ←
15:28:33 <kasei> ... there is still the open question about how much time it will take for the spec.
... there is still the open question about how much time it will take for the spec. ←
15:29:30 <kasei> AndyS: it will take a while to spec. then we'll need a good reviewer as well.
Andy Seaborne: it will take a while to spec. then we'll need a good reviewer as well. ←
15:29:51 <kasei> ... possible by end of February.
... possible by end of February. ←
15:30:16 <kasei> AxelPolleres: if we can do it by the end of February, I think we should try it. otherwise option 3.
Axel Polleres: if we can do it by the end of February, I think we should try it. otherwise option 3. ←
15:30:30 <kasei> AndyS: I'm not prepared to make time for spec work if it's a "maybe".
Andy Seaborne: I'm not prepared to make time for spec work if it's a "maybe". ←
15:30:50 <kasei> ... if people's existing concerns won't be addressed by spec work.
... if people's existing concerns won't be addressed by spec work. ←
15:31:06 <kasei> AxelPolleres: Greg wasn't in support of option 2. Lee had expressed preference for option 3 on the list.
Axel Polleres: Greg wasn't in support of option 2. Lee had expressed preference for option 3 on the list. ←
15:31:28 <kasei> chime: my inclination is to go with option 3.
Chimezie Ogbuji: my inclination is to go with option 3. ←
15:32:12 <AndyS> zakim, who is on the phone?
Andy Seaborne: zakim, who is on the phone? ←
15:32:12 <Zakim> On the phone I see AxelPolleres?, Sandro, MattPerry, kasei, AndyS, pgearon, chimezie, bglimm (muted)
Zakim IRC Bot: On the phone I see AxelPolleres?, Sandro, MattPerry, kasei, AndyS, pgearon, chimezie, bglimm (muted) ←
15:32:33 <kasei> AxelPolleres: if we can't do it by the end of the month, we'll probably have to drop it.
Axel Polleres: if we can't do it by the end of the month, we'll probably have to drop it. ←
15:33:09 <kasei> AndyS: we've been hearing "hints" that we should get around to finishing. what's the current timescale from the team perspective?
Andy Seaborne: we've been hearing "hints" that we should get around to finishing. what's the current timescale from the team perspective? ←
15:33:22 <kasei> sandro: we're chartered through the end of June.
Sandro Hawke: we're chartered through the end of June. ←
15:33:30 <AxelPolleres> from before... 4 x Option 2, 1 x Option 3, nobody for Option 1... (... additionally: chime and Lee also for Option3. adding two more voices for Option 3)
Axel Polleres: from before... 4 x Option 2, 1 x Option 3, nobody for Option 1... (... additionally: chime and Lee also for Option3. adding two more voices for Option 3) ←
15:33:38 <kasei> ... I don't think it would be great to go too much past that.
... I don't think it would be great to go too much past that. ←
15:33:51 <kasei> ... as long as we're not needing much staff time, I don't think there's that much argument.
... as long as we're not needing much staff time, I don't think there's that much argument. ←
15:33:57 <kasei> ... the strong argument is the group itself.
... the strong argument is the group itself. ←
15:34:11 <kasei> ... staff perspective is that as long as WG is excited to keep working on it, it's probably OK.
... staff perspective is that as long as WG is excited to keep working on it, it's probably OK. ←
15:34:15 <kasei> ... my sense is that's not the case.
... my sense is that's not the case. ←
15:34:27 <kasei> ... want to make sure we get to rec before people go home.
... want to make sure we get to rec before people go home. ←
15:34:59 <kasei> AxelPolleres: option 2/3 could go with marking PP non-normative which would somewhat put them out of the line of fire of criticism.
Axel Polleres: option 2/3 could go with marking PP non-normative which would somewhat put them out of the line of fire of criticism. ←
15:35:06 <kasei> ... is that something people would consider?
... is that something people would consider? ←
15:35:13 <bglimm> +1
Birte Glimm: +1 ←
15:35:20 <AxelPolleres> strawpoll on making property paths non-normative?
Axel Polleres: strawpoll on making property paths non-normative? ←
15:35:21 <kasei> -1
-1 ←
15:35:24 <AxelPolleres> 0
Axel Polleres: 0 ←
15:35:27 <MattPerry> -1
Matthew Perry: -1 ←
15:35:32 <kasei> chime: I prefer option 3 over making it non-normative.
Chimezie Ogbuji: I prefer option 3 over making it non-normative. ←
15:35:44 <kasei> ... (keeping it normative)
... (keeping it normative) ←
15:35:48 <pgearon> -1
Paul Gearon: -1 ←
15:35:57 <AndyS> -1
Andy Seaborne: -1 ←
15:36:27 <AndyS> ... lists alone suggest keeping it
Andy Seaborne: ... lists alone suggest keeping it ←
15:36:48 <AxelPolleres> 5 people for keeping PP normative, 1 for non-normative,
Axel Polleres: 5 people for keeping PP normative, 1 for non-normative, ←
15:37:16 <kasei> AxelPolleres: we'll fall back to option 3 unless we can make progress by next week.
Axel Polleres: we'll fall back to option 3 unless we can make progress by next week. ←
15:37:27 <AxelPolleres> topic: MOVE/COPY test cases
15:37:45 <kasei> AxelPolleres: any updates on the Update spec regarding the copy/move issues?
Axel Polleres: any updates on the Update spec regarding the copy/move issues? ←
15:38:02 <kasei> pgearon: I haven't had an opportunity to address the test cases.
Paul Gearon: I haven't had an opportunity to address the test cases. ←
15:38:17 <kasei> ... the main thing is atomicity.
... the main thing is atomicity. ←
15:38:23 <kasei> ... I've done part of it, but haven't checked it in.
... I've done part of it, but haven't checked it in. ←
15:38:47 <kasei> ... atomicity mentioned twice in document. once regarding copy/move, the other regarding abstract definition of operations.
... atomicity mentioned twice in document. once regarding copy/move, the other regarding abstract definition of operations. ←
15:39:02 <kasei> ... I've made change in first.
... I've made change in first. ←
15:39:22 <kasei> ... not happy with deleting "atomic" from second case.
... not happy with deleting "atomic" from second case. ←
15:40:13 <kasei> ... removing "atomic" doesn't seem appropriate in second case, but the ACTION mentions that section.
... removing "atomic" doesn't seem appropriate in second case, but the ACTION mentions that section. ←
15:40:58 <kasei> AxelPolleres: I see "atomic" appearing in section 2.2. "A request should be treated atomically."
Axel Polleres: I see "atomic" appearing in section 2.2. "A request should be treated atomically." ←
15:41:06 <kasei> pgearon: that's the section I've already changed.
Paul Gearon: that's the section I've already changed. ←
15:41:08 <AndyS> q+
Andy Seaborne: q+ ←
15:41:16 <kasei> ... the ACTION specifically has a link to another part of the document.
... the ACTION specifically has a link to another part of the document. ←
15:41:28 <kasei> AxelPolleres: the definition of "abstract update operation"?
Axel Polleres: the definition of "abstract update operation"? ←
15:41:30 <pgearon> The link in question is: http://www.w3.org/TR/sparql11-update/#def_updateoperation
Paul Gearon: The link in question is: http://www.w3.org/TR/sparql11-update/#def_updateoperation ←
15:41:31 <kasei> pgearon: yes.
Paul Gearon: yes. ←
15:42:30 <kasei> AxelPolleres: I thought we had agreed to remove "atomic" from the update operation definition.
Axel Polleres: I thought we had agreed to remove "atomic" from the update operation definition. ←
15:42:41 <kasei> pgearon: I didn't realize "atomic" was being used here when we made this decision.
Paul Gearon: I didn't realize "atomic" was being used here when we made this decision. ←
15:42:45 <kasei> q+
q+ ←
15:42:56 <pgearon> q-
Paul Gearon: q- ←
15:43:12 <kasei> AndyS: I'm worried that section 2.2 has been changed.
Andy Seaborne: I'm worried that section 2.2 has been changed. ←
15:43:23 <kasei> ... re: multiple requests should be treated atomically.
... re: multiple requests should be treated atomically. ←
15:43:38 <kasei> ... surprised that's been changed.
... surprised that's been changed. ←
15:43:59 <kasei> pgearon: it was never a requirement in the first place, because it was "SHOULD".
Paul Gearon: it was never a requirement in the first place, because it was "SHOULD". ←
15:44:33 <kasei> pgearon: I've changed "SHOULD" to "MAY".
Paul Gearon: I've changed "SHOULD" to "MAY". ←
15:45:28 <kasei> AndyS: you said "atomic" is important in the definitions. In the sense of indivisible, but there's no sense of time in the operations.
Andy Seaborne: you said "atomic" is important in the definitions. In the sense of indivisible, but there's no sense of time in the operations. ←
15:45:35 <kasei> ... what is "atomic" adding for you?
... what is "atomic" adding for you? ←
15:45:52 <kasei> pgearon: I didn't write this section.
Paul Gearon: I didn't write this section. ←
15:46:07 <kasei> ... 'either makes the chaange completely, or leaves the graph store unchanged.'
... 'either makes the chaange completely, or leaves the graph store unchanged.' ←
15:46:16 <AndyS> ack me
Andy Seaborne: ack me ←
15:46:48 <kasei> AxelPolleres: my recollection is that we'd remove 'atomic' from the definition "SHOULD be performed atomically".
Axel Polleres: my recollection is that we'd remove 'atomic' from the definition "SHOULD be performed atomically". ←
15:47:00 <kasei> ... could add what we mean by "atomic" there in the informal section.
... could add what we mean by "atomic" there in the informal section. ←
15:47:35 <kasei> ... for the sections on copy/move, some wording would be in order that says that certain copy/move operations are not equivalent to the drop/update operations.
... for the sections on copy/move, some wording would be in order that says that certain copy/move operations are not equivalent to the drop/update operations. ←
15:48:07 <AxelPolleres> q?
Axel Polleres: q? ←
15:48:52 <AndyS> kasei: for the equivalences, worried we will not capture all the details
Gregory Williams: for the equivalences, worried we will not capture all the details [ Scribe Assist by Andy Seaborne ] ←
15:49:02 <AndyS> ... e.g. DROP+Update
Andy Seaborne: ... e.g. DROP+Update ←
15:49:09 <AndyS> ack kasei
Andy Seaborne: ack kasei ←
15:49:39 <kasei> AxelPolleres: we only had the informal definition for these operations, right? no formal definition.
Axel Polleres: we only had the informal definition for these operations, right? no formal definition. ←
15:50:10 <kasei> ... if we drop the equivalences, it's even worse because there's simply no definition.
... if we drop the equivalences, it's even worse because there's simply no definition. ←
15:50:10 <pgearon> +q
Paul Gearon: +q ←
15:50:27 <kasei> AndyS: would you be interested in working to frame up some text to replace the formal definitions?
Andy Seaborne: would you be interested in working to frame up some text to replace the formal definitions? ←
15:50:30 <kasei> kasei: sure
Gregory Williams: sure ←
15:50:40 <kasei> AxelPolleres: you mean the equivalences?
Axel Polleres: you mean the equivalences? ←
15:50:43 <kasei> AndyS: yes
Andy Seaborne: yes ←
15:51:12 <AndyS> ack pgearon
Andy Seaborne: ack pgearon ←
15:51:30 <kasei> pgearon: what I was trying to do for copy/move was take out "is equivalent to", and change to "has a similar effect as", explaining that they act as single operations.
Paul Gearon: what I was trying to do for copy/move was take out "is equivalent to", and change to "has a similar effect as", explaining that they act as single operations. ←
15:51:45 <kasei> ... so :g -> :g has the expected no-op effect.
... so :g -> :g has the expected no-op effect. ←
15:51:49 <AxelPolleres> Greg, Andy would offer to suggest a replacement for the current definitions of COPY, MOVE, ADD in terms of equivalences.
Axel Polleres: Greg, Andy would offer to suggest a replacement for the current definitions of COPY, MOVE, ADD in terms of equivalences. ←
15:52:57 <kasei> AndyS: I'm not clear on where we're at in section 2.2.
Andy Seaborne: I'm not clear on where we're at in section 2.2. ←
15:53:06 <kasei> pgearon: I've left "atomic" in, and changed "SHOULD" to "MAY".
Paul Gearon: I've left "atomic" in, and changed "SHOULD" to "MAY". ←
15:53:31 <kasei> ... explained that "atomic" in this case means that operations may be grouped together.
... explained that "atomic" in this case means that operations may be grouped together. ←
15:54:14 <kasei> AxelPolleres: I think "SHOULD" is preferable here.
Axel Polleres: I think "SHOULD" is preferable here. ←
15:54:29 <kasei> pgearon: 2.2 talks about an atomic request, but the definition talks about an atomic operation.
Paul Gearon: 2.2 talks about an atomic request, but the definition talks about an atomic operation. ←
15:55:22 <kasei> ... I do think of operations as being atomic.
... I do think of operations as being atomic. ←
15:55:53 <kasei> ... I don't know if we can consider ops to be truly atomic, but from the perspective of what "operation" means, I think you want them to either have their effect, or not.
... I don't know if we can consider ops to be truly atomic, but from the perspective of what "operation" means, I think you want them to either have their effect, or not. ←
15:56:11 <kasei> q+ to ask about the outstanding copy/move tests before we leave this topic
q+ to ask about the outstanding copy/move tests before we leave this topic ←
15:57:33 <AndyS> pgearon, could ping me when the text is checked in? Thx.
Andy Seaborne: pgearon, could you ping me when the text is checked in? Thx. ←
15:57:50 <AndyS> s/could/could you/
15:58:04 <kasei> AxelPolleres: general agreement was to drop copy05/move05.
Axel Polleres: general agreement was to drop copy05/move05. ←
15:59:02 <kasei> AxelPolleres: we would drop those tests conditional on email?
Axel Polleres: we would drop those tests conditional on email? ←
15:59:04 <kasei> pgearon: I don't know.
Paul Gearon: I don't know. ←
15:59:15 <kasei> AxelPolleres: Can you take a look?
Axel Polleres: Can you take a look? ←
15:59:18 <kasei> pgearon: ok.
Paul Gearon: ok. ←
15:59:28 <AxelPolleres> ACTION: paul to confirm removal of test cases move05 and copy05 per email
ACTION: paul to confirm removal of test cases move05 and copy05 per email ←
15:59:28 <trackbot> Created ACTION-590 - Confirm removal of test cases move05 and copy05 per email [on Paul Gearon - due 2012-02-21].
Trackbot IRC Bot: Created ACTION-590 - Confirm removal of test cases move05 and copy05 per email [on Paul Gearon - due 2012-02-21]. ←
15:59:49 <AndyS> bye all
Andy Seaborne: bye all ←
15:59:52 <Zakim> -Sandro
Zakim IRC Bot: -Sandro ←
15:59:52 <bglimm> bye
Birte Glimm: bye ←
15:59:53 <AxelPolleres> adjourned.
Axel Polleres: adjourned. ←
Formatted by CommonScribe
This revision (#1) generated 2012-02-14 16:15:54 UTC by 'gwilliam', comments: 'Cleaned up minutes.'