13:58:53 <RRSAgent> logging to http://www.w3.org/2012/03/27-sparql-irc
RRSAgent IRC Bot: logging to http://www.w3.org/2012/03/27-sparql-irc ←
13:58:55 <trackbot> RRSAgent, make logs world
Trackbot IRC Bot: RRSAgent, make logs world ←
13:58:57 <trackbot> Zakim, this will be 77277
Trackbot IRC Bot: Zakim, this will be 77277 ←
13:58:57 <Zakim> ok, trackbot; I see SW_(SPARQL)10:00AM scheduled to start in 2 minutes
Zakim IRC Bot: ok, trackbot; I see SW_(SPARQL)10:00AM scheduled to start in 2 minutes ←
13:58:58 <trackbot> Meeting: SPARQL Working Group Teleconference
13:58:58 <trackbot> Date: 27 March 2012
13:59:05 <AndyS> zakim, this is 77277
Andy Seaborne: zakim, this is 77277 ←
13:59:05 <Zakim> ok, AndyS; that matches SW_(SPARQL)10:00AM
Zakim IRC Bot: ok, AndyS; that matches SW_(SPARQL)10:00AM ←
13:59:15 <AndyS> zakim, who is on the phone?
Andy Seaborne: zakim, who is on the phone? ←
13:59:15 <Zakim> On the phone I see pgearon, [IPcaller]
Zakim IRC Bot: On the phone I see pgearon, [IPcaller] ←
13:59:22 <AndyS> zakim, IPCaller is me
Andy Seaborne: zakim, IPCaller is me ←
13:59:22 <Zakim> +AndyS; got it
Zakim IRC Bot: +AndyS; got it ←
14:00:21 <AxelPolleres> trackbot, start meeting
Axel Polleres: trackbot, start meeting ←
14:00:23 <Zakim> +Olivier_
Zakim IRC Bot: +Olivier_ ←
14:00:23 <trackbot> RRSAgent, make logs world
Trackbot IRC Bot: RRSAgent, make logs world ←
14:00:25 <trackbot> Zakim, this will be 77277
Trackbot IRC Bot: Zakim, this will be 77277 ←
14:00:25 <Zakim> ok, trackbot; I see SW_(SPARQL)10:00AM scheduled to start now
Zakim IRC Bot: ok, trackbot; I see SW_(SPARQL)10:00AM scheduled to start now ←
14:00:26 <trackbot> Meeting: SPARQL Working Group Teleconference
14:00:26 <trackbot> Date: 27 March 2012
14:01:43 <SteveH> Zakim, who's on the phone?
Steve Harris: Zakim, who's on the phone? ←
14:01:44 <Zakim> I notice SW_(SPARQL)10:00AM has restarted
Zakim IRC Bot: I notice SW_(SPARQL)10:00AM has restarted ←
14:01:44 <Zakim> On the phone I see pgearon, AndyS, Olivier_, +43.517.073.aaaa, kasei, ??P6
Zakim IRC Bot: On the phone I see pgearon, AndyS, Olivier_, +43.517.073.aaaa, kasei, ??P6 ←
14:01:49 <AxelPolleres> agenda: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-dawg/2012JanMar/0276.html
14:01:51 <SteveH> Zakim, ??P6 is me
Steve Harris: Zakim, ??P6 is me ←
14:01:51 <Zakim> +SteveH; got it
Zakim IRC Bot: +SteveH; got it ←
14:02:08 <AxelPolleres> chair: AxelPolleres
14:02:18 <Zakim> +MattPerry
Zakim IRC Bot: +MattPerry ←
14:02:55 <AxelPolleres> scribe: PaulGearon
(Scribe set to Paul Gearon)
14:03:02 <Zakim> +??P14
Zakim IRC Bot: +??P14 ←
14:03:06 <AxelPolleres> Zakim, who is on the phone?
Axel Polleres: Zakim, who is on the phone? ←
14:03:06 <Zakim> On the phone I see pgearon, AndyS, Olivier_, +43.517.073.aaaa, kasei, SteveH, MattPerry, ??P14
Zakim IRC Bot: On the phone I see pgearon, AndyS, Olivier_, +43.517.073.aaaa, kasei, SteveH, MattPerry, ??P14 ←
14:03:10 <cbuilara> zakim, ??P14 is me
Carlos Buil Aranda: zakim, ??P14 is me ←
14:03:10 <Zakim> +cbuilara; got it
Zakim IRC Bot: +cbuilara; got it ←
14:03:16 <AxelPolleres> Zakim, aaaa is me
Axel Polleres: Zakim, aaaa is me ←
14:03:16 <Zakim> +AxelPolleres; got it
Zakim IRC Bot: +AxelPolleres; got it ←
14:03:27 <AxelPolleres> Zakim, who is on the phone?
Axel Polleres: Zakim, who is on the phone? ←
14:03:28 <Zakim> On the phone I see pgearon, AndyS, Olivier_, AxelPolleres, kasei, SteveH, MattPerry, cbuilara
Zakim IRC Bot: On the phone I see pgearon, AndyS, Olivier_, AxelPolleres, kasei, SteveH, MattPerry, cbuilara ←
14:04:16 <pgearon> AxelPolleres: goal for this week is discussing the further procedures for publications of the 3 docs coming up for last call
Axel Polleres: goal for this week is discussing the further procedures for publications of the 3 docs coming up for last call ←
14:04:21 <AxelPolleres> topic: admin
14:04:39 <AxelPolleres> PROPOSED: Approve minutes at http://www.w3.org/2009/sparql/meeting/2012-03-20
PROPOSED: Approve minutes at http://www.w3.org/2009/sparql/meeting/2012-03-20 ←
14:04:56 <Zakim> +sandro
Zakim IRC Bot: +sandro ←
14:05:03 <AxelPolleres> RESOLVED: Approve minutes at http://www.w3.org/2009/sparql/meeting/2012-03-20
RESOLVED: Approve minutes at http://www.w3.org/2009/sparql/meeting/2012-03-20 ←
14:05:30 <Zakim> +LeeF
Zakim IRC Bot: +LeeF ←
14:05:36 <AxelPolleres> Next regular meeting: 2012-04-03 @ 15:00 UK / 10:00 EST any regrets?
Axel Polleres: Next regular meeting: 2012-04-03 @ 15:00 UK / 10:00 EST any regrets? ←
14:05:44 <Zakim> +chimezie
Zakim IRC Bot: +chimezie ←
14:05:45 <AxelPolleres> regrets form axel
Axel Polleres: regrets form axel ←
14:05:58 <chimezie> Zakim, mute me
Chimezie Ogbuji: Zakim, mute me ←
14:05:58 <Zakim> chimezie should now be muted
Zakim IRC Bot: chimezie should now be muted ←
14:06:24 <pgearon> AxelPolleres: news from the RDF WG?
Axel Polleres: news from the RDF WG? ←
14:06:24 <AxelPolleres> topic: rdf liaison
14:06:33 <AxelPolleres> working towards LC for turtle
Axel Polleres: working towards LC for turtle ←
14:06:44 <pgearon> AndyS: working towards LC for Turtle, nothing special
Andy Seaborne: working towards LC for Turtle, nothing special ←
14:06:51 <AxelPolleres> agenda: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-dawg/2012JanMar/0276.html
14:07:26 <AxelPolleres> topic: next publications
14:07:32 <AxelPolleres> subtopic: CSV/TSV
14:07:47 <pgearon> AxelPolleres: AFAICT we have the necessary reviews
Axel Polleres: AFAICT we have the necessary reviews ←
14:07:59 <pgearon> AxelPolleres: ACTION 593 594
Axel Polleres: ACTION-593 594 ←
14:08:43 <pgearon> AxelPolleres: 593 was just completed today. 2 small issues that have been resolved. Have not yet checked the updates in 594, but that has been done
Axel Polleres: 593 was just completed today. 2 small issues that have been resolved. Have not yet checked the updates in 594, but that has been done ←
14:08:58 <pgearon> AndyS: ready to publish
Andy Seaborne: ready to publish ←
14:09:23 <pgearon> kasei: yes, ready to publish
Gregory Williams: yes, ready to publish ←
14:09:27 <AxelPolleres> PROPOSED: to publish CSV/TSV as LC
PROPOSED: to publish CSV/TSV as LC ←
14:09:43 <kasei> +1
Gregory Williams: +1 ←
14:09:50 <chimezie> +1 IE
Chimezie Ogbuji: +1 IE ←
14:09:52 <AxelPolleres> +1 (siemens)
Axel Polleres: +1 (siemens) ←
14:09:54 <AndyS> +1 ASF
Andy Seaborne: +1 ASF ←
14:09:55 <pgearon> +1 Revelytix
+1 Revelytix ←
14:09:56 <MattPerry> +1 (Oracle)
Matthew Perry: +1 (Oracle) ←
14:09:57 <sandro> +1 W3C
Sandro Hawke: +1 W3C ←
14:09:57 <LeeF> aye
Lee Feigenbaum: aye ←
14:09:58 <Olivier> +1 INRIA
Olivier Corby: +1 INRIA ←
14:10:18 <AxelPolleres> Zakim, who is on the phone?
Axel Polleres: Zakim, who is on the phone? ←
14:10:18 <Zakim> On the phone I see pgearon, AndyS, Olivier_, AxelPolleres, kasei, SteveH, MattPerry, cbuilara, sandro, LeeF, chimezie (muted)
Zakim IRC Bot: On the phone I see pgearon, AndyS, Olivier_, AxelPolleres, kasei, SteveH, MattPerry, cbuilara, sandro, LeeF, chimezie (muted) ←
14:10:35 <SteveH> +1 Garlik/Experian
Steve Harris: +1 Garlik/Experian ←
14:11:21 <AxelPolleres> RESOLVED: publish CSV/TSV as LC
RESOLVED: publish CSV/TSV as LC ←
14:11:30 <pgearon> AxelPolleres: date TBD
Axel Polleres: date TBD ←
14:11:47 <AxelPolleres> 7 +1, no objections or abstentions
Axel Polleres: 7 +1, no objections or abstentions ←
14:12:02 <AxelPolleres> subtopic: overview
14:12:24 <Zakim> +EricP
Zakim IRC Bot: +EricP ←
14:12:56 <pgearon> AxelPolleres: only managed yesterday to finish. Some small examples. Will not have time to work on this document any more
Axel Polleres: only managed yesterday to finish. Some small examples. Will not have time to work on this document any more ←
14:13:02 <LeeF> Probably!
Lee Feigenbaum: Probably! ←
14:13:08 <pgearon> AxelPolleres: Lee, can you do the review int he next week?
Axel Polleres: Lee, can you do the review int he next week? ←
14:13:16 <AxelPolleres> Lee to review within the coming week.
Axel Polleres: Lee to review within the coming week. ←
14:13:40 <pgearon> AxelPolleres: more comments/questions on the overview doc? Else wait for review
Axel Polleres: more comments/questions on the overview doc? Else wait for review ←
14:13:48 <AxelPolleres> subtopic: query
14:14:14 <pgearon> AxelPolleres: resolution from last week, discussed in mail from kasei
Axel Polleres: resolution from last week, discussed in mail from kasei ←
14:14:20 <LeeF> In fairness, last week we did NOT discuss the ALLPATHS(...) option or the default semantics, so I think Greg's comments were well in order
Lee Feigenbaum: In fairness, last week we did NOT discuss the ALLPATHS(...) option or the default semantics, so I think Greg's comments were well in order ←
14:14:31 <pgearon> AxelPolleres: could kasei summarize concern?
Axel Polleres: could kasei summarize concern? ←
14:15:03 <pgearon> kasei: concerned with path speccing 2 semantics, and then providing syntactic preference for one over the other
Gregory Williams: concerned with path speccing 2 semantics, and then providing syntactic preference for one over the other ←
14:15:09 <ericP> isn't the exhaustive semantics the default for the rest of query?
Eric Prud'hommeaux: isn't the exhaustive semantics the default for the rest of query? ←
14:15:18 <AxelPolleres> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-dawg/2012JanMar/0272.html
Axel Polleres: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-dawg/2012JanMar/0272.html ←
14:15:33 <pgearon> kasei: this is premature since we don't know which is the semantics that will be more desirable
Gregory Williams: this is premature since we don't know which is the semantics that will be more desirable ←
14:15:34 <ericP> i'd expect that changing that default for one part of the language would be surprising for users
Eric Prud'hommeaux: i'd expect that changing that default for one part of the language would be surprising for users ←
14:15:48 <LeeF> ericP, yes, which is why that was how our design went for pp, too, but we now have significant feedback that for pp non-counting often makes more sense
Lee Feigenbaum: ericP, yes, which is why that was how our design went for pp, too, but we now have significant feedback that for pp non-counting often makes more sense ←
14:15:50 <ericP> much as UNION ALL is catches SQL users up
Eric Prud'hommeaux: much as UNION ALL is catches SQL users up ←
14:15:56 <AndyS> I believe there is a preferred semantics.
Andy Seaborne: I believe there is a preferred semantics. ←
14:16:21 <AxelPolleres> q?
Axel Polleres: q? ←
14:16:25 <AndyS> EricP - the comments do not align with your point.
Andy Seaborne: EricP - the comments do not align with your point. ←
14:16:35 <pgearon> kasei: suggest DISTINCT/ALL PATHS as keywords. But concerned we're making the decision without any basis and I think that will come back to bite us
Gregory Williams: suggest DISTINCT/ALL PATHS as keywords. But concerned we're making the decision without any basis and I think that will come back to bite us ←
14:17:01 <pgearon> AndyS: another concern. The info brought to the WG last time was that all commentors had been contacted and were OK with the approach
Andy Seaborne: another concern. The info brought to the WG last time was that all commentors had been contacted and were OK with the approach ←
14:17:17 <LeeF> Right, not all commenters have been contacted
Lee Feigenbaum: Right, not all commenters have been contacted ←
14:17:22 <pgearon> AndyS: but the last contact was in Feb and isn't the latest
Andy Seaborne: but the last contact was in Feb and isn't the latest ←
14:17:50 <pgearon> AndyS: and one commenter was not contacted
Andy Seaborne: and one commenter was not contacted ←
14:18:23 <pgearon> AxelPolleres: one contacted was in touch and said he was OK with suggested semantics
Axel Polleres: one contacted was in touch and said he was OK with suggested semantics ←
14:18:36 <pgearon> AxelPolleres: did not contact "Yin" (?)
Axel Polleres: did not contact "Jeen" (?) ←
14:19:15 <AxelPolleres> s/Yin/Jeen/
14:19:21 <pgearon> AxelPolleres: point of discussion was that semantics on paths was OK for them
Axel Polleres: point of discussion was that semantics on paths was OK for them ←
14:19:48 <AndyS> action 600?
14:19:48 <trackbot> Sorry, bad ACTION syntax
Trackbot IRC Bot: Sorry, bad ACTION syntax ←
14:20:19 <pgearon> AxelPolleres: danger is if we do not proceed with resolution from last week, then we may lock, and may end up having to do the entire discussion again
Axel Polleres: danger is if we do not proceed with resolution from last week, then we may lock, and may end up having to do the entire discussion again ←
14:20:23 <sandro> q?
Sandro Hawke: q? ←
14:21:35 <AndyS> q+
Andy Seaborne: q+ ←
14:21:43 <pgearon> kasei: not suggesting that default should be one or the other. We don't have the data to make the decision yet
Gregory Williams: not suggesting that default should be one or the other. We don't have the data to make the decision yet ←
14:22:08 <AxelPolleres> grep suggests to have both keywords fom path expressions ALLPATHS( ) and DISTINCT( )
Axel Polleres: grep suggests to have both keywords fom path expressions ALLPATHS( ) and DISTINCT( ) ←
14:22:08 <ericP> that's reasonably conservative
Eric Prud'hommeaux: that's reasonably conservative ←
14:22:09 <pgearon> kasei: suggest using both keywords, and leave it up to implementations as to what to do if neither keyword is used
Gregory Williams: suggest using both keywords, and leave it up to implementations as to what to do if neither keyword is used ←
14:22:23 <ericP> takes up one new token in the grammar
Eric Prud'hommeaux: takes up one new token in the grammar ←
14:22:38 <pgearon> +1 on kasei's idea
+1 on kasei's idea ←
14:23:25 <pgearon> Sandro: we can use AT RISK so that if we get pushback from devs then we can choose which way to go at the end of CR
Sandro Hawke: we can use AT RISK so that if we get pushback from devs then we can choose which way to go at the end of CR ←
14:23:47 <pgearon> Sandro: so we can put off the decision for now
Sandro Hawke: so we can put off the decision for now ←
14:24:07 <sandro> (or, really, we can easily backtrack on this decision, if we mark it AT RISK.)
Sandro Hawke: (or, really, we can easily backtrack on this decision, if we mark it AT RISK.) ←
14:24:16 <pgearon> AxelPolleres: should we have a straw poll on this question?
Axel Polleres: should we have a straw poll on this question? ←
14:24:37 <kasei> sandro, are you suggesting that the entire PP syntax would be at risk? I'm not sure what would be left below the 'at risk' part...
Gregory Williams: sandro, are you suggesting that the entire PP syntax would be at risk? I'm not sure what would be left below the 'at risk' part... ←
14:25:17 <ericP> how about "At risk: property paths require either the keyword DISTINCT or ALL to specify an exhaustive exploration of the path solutions. One of these keywords may be removed, making that semantics the default semantics for bare paths in graph patterns"?
Eric Prud'hommeaux: how about "At risk: property paths require either the keyword DISTINCT or ALL to specify an exhaustive exploration of the path solutions. One of these keywords may be removed, making that semantics the default semantics for bare paths in graph patterns"? ←
14:25:32 <AxelPolleres> PROPOSED: Add alternative DISTINCT() and ALLPATHS() modifiers around full property paths to SPARQL 1.1 Query as an AT RISK feature, and add work on counting & non-counting operators or partial paths to the future work list
PROPOSED: Add alternative DISTINCT() and ALLPATHS() modifiers around full property paths to SPARQL 1.1 Query as an AT RISK feature, and add work on counting & non-counting operators or partial paths to the future work list ←
14:25:32 <ericP> (for the text in Query)
Eric Prud'hommeaux: (for the text in Query) ←
14:25:40 <AndyS> -1
Andy Seaborne: -1 ←
14:27:10 <pgearon> AndyS: concerned we're just punting it to a later time
Andy Seaborne: concerned we're just punting it to a later time ←
14:27:23 <ericP> how about "At risk: property paths require either the keyword DISTINCT or ALL to specify an exhaustive exploration of the path solutions. One of these keywords may be removed during CR, making that semantics the default semantics for bare paths in graph patterns. The SPARQL WG would appreciate relevent feedback to public-sparql-comments@w3.org from users and implementors."?
Eric Prud'hommeaux: how about "At risk: property paths require either the keyword DISTINCT or ALL to specify an exhaustive exploration of the path solutions. One of these keywords may be removed during CR, making that semantics the default semantics for bare paths in graph patterns. The SPARQL WG would appreciate relevent feedback to public-sparql-comments@w3.org from users and implementors."? ←
14:27:31 <AndyS> q?
Andy Seaborne: q? ←
14:27:37 <pgearon> AxelPolleres: if it's AT RISK then there's no fallback
Axel Polleres: if it's AT RISK then there's no fallback ←
14:27:47 <ericP> (specifies "during CR" and adds the plea for comments)
Eric Prud'hommeaux: (specifies "during CR" and adds the plea for comments) ←
14:28:03 <pgearon> AxelPolleres: current fallback is the LC document
Axel Polleres: current fallback is the LC document ←
14:28:12 <pgearon> Sandro: the other fallback is to remove it completely
Sandro Hawke: the other fallback is to remove it completely ←
14:28:36 <pgearon> Sandro: reminded recently that PP is a time permitting feature
Sandro Hawke: reminded recently that PP is a time permitting feature ←
14:29:08 <pgearon> Sandro: trying to get an extension on the WG charter. This is hard to justify for a "time permitting" feature
Sandro Hawke: trying to get an extension on the WG charter. This is hard to justify for a "time permitting" feature ←
14:29:41 <pgearon> AndyS: commenters are saying something reasonably clear: there IS a preferred set of semantics
Andy Seaborne: commenters are saying something reasonably clear: there IS a preferred set of semantics ←
14:30:08 <pgearon> AndyS: from outside, for *+ then non-counting makes more sense. It's more intuitive
Andy Seaborne: from outside, for *+ then non-counting makes more sense. It's more intuitive ←
14:30:37 <pgearon> AndyS: referring to the comments on list. There are 3 on the list
Andy Seaborne: referring to the comments on list. There are 3 on the list ←
14:30:51 <pgearon> AxelPolleres: the Chilleans indicate they want an existential on the whole path
Axel Polleres: the Chilleans indicate they want an existential on the whole path ←
14:31:09 <pgearon> AxelPolleres: they want a non-counting semantics
Axel Polleres: they want a non-counting semantics ←
14:31:37 <pgearon> AxelPolleres: Jeen is more towards what AndyS is saying.
Axel Polleres: Jeen is more towards what AndyS is saying. ←
14:31:40 <ericP> i note that our comment solicitation encourages only comments from those who aren't content with an ALL semantics
Eric Prud'hommeaux: i note that our comment solicitation encourages only comments from those who aren't content with an ALL semantics ←
14:31:53 <pgearon> AndyS: Chilean paper is very much around *
Andy Seaborne: Chilean paper is very much around * ←
14:32:00 <AxelPolleres> http://www.dcc.uchile.cl/~jperez/papers/www2012.pdf
Axel Polleres: http://www.dcc.uchile.cl/~jperez/papers/www2012.pdf ←
14:32:01 <ericP> (here's a doc, shout if you don't like it)
Eric Prud'hommeaux: (here's a doc, shout if you don't like it) ←
14:32:34 <pgearon> AndyS: not that other things aren't mentioned. It's a question of emphasis
Andy Seaborne: not that other things aren't mentioned. It's a question of emphasis ←
14:32:52 <pgearon> AxelPolleres: paper discusses existential on paths.
Axel Polleres: paper discusses existential on paths. ←
14:33:09 <pgearon> AxelPolleres: "cardinality of this mapping would be one"
Axel Polleres: "cardinality of this mapping would be one" ←
14:34:18 <pgearon> AxelPolleres: with resolution from last time we can deal with this semantics just by putting DISTINCT around the expression
Axel Polleres: with resolution from last time we can deal with this semantics just by putting DISTINCT around the expression ←
14:35:08 <pgearon> Sandro: according to AndyS, we can just change the semantics to meet the comments. Don't need any new keywords
Sandro Hawke: according to AndyS, we can just change the semantics to meet the comments. Don't need any new keywords ←
14:35:12 <pgearon> AndyS: yes
Andy Seaborne: yes ←
14:35:19 <AxelPolleres> * + alone dont make existential semantics.
Axel Polleres: * + alone dont make existential semantics. ←
14:35:24 <pgearon> AxelPolleres: can't get existential semantics just by changing * +
Axel Polleres: can't get existential semantics just by changing * + ←
14:35:44 <pgearon> AxelPolleres: Chileans don't want mixed semantics
Axel Polleres: Chileans don't want mixed semantics ←
14:35:51 <pgearon> AndyS: where's that in the paper?
Andy Seaborne: where's that in the paper? ←
14:36:04 <pgearon> sandro: there's no need to follow that paper
Sandro Hawke: there's no need to follow that paper ←
14:36:25 <pgearon> AxelPolleres: the problem is if WE are happy with things
Axel Polleres: the problem is if WE are happy with things ←
14:37:05 <pgearon> AxelPolleres: addressing discussion from the week. Started by kasei, and includes AndyS and AxelPolleres
Axel Polleres: addressing discussion from the week. Started by kasei, and includes AndyS and AxelPolleres ←
14:37:23 <pgearon> AxelPolleres: are we happy with resolution from last week?
Axel Polleres: are we happy with resolution from last week? ←
14:37:50 <pgearon> AxelPolleres: will kasei (or anyone else) want to lie down in the road over this issue?
Axel Polleres: will kasei (or anyone else) want to lie down in the road over this issue? ←
14:38:12 <pgearon> kasei: from my understanding of the resolution last week is a problem for me
Gregory Williams: from my understanding of the resolution last week is a problem for me ←
14:38:28 <pgearon> kasei: but there appears to be more to the resolution than what I read in the minutes
Gregory Williams: but there appears to be more to the resolution than what I read in the minutes ←
14:38:46 <AxelPolleres> what we resolved to was Option 3 http://www.w3.org/2009/sparql/meeting/2012-03-20#line0225
Axel Polleres: what we resolved to was Option 3 http://www.w3.org/2009/sparql/meeting/2012-03-20#line0225 ←
14:38:47 <pgearon> AxelPolleres: last week we went with option 3
Axel Polleres: last week we went with option 3 ←
14:39:21 <pgearon> AxelPolleres: adding DISTINCT around full paths only. Other than that we leave the semantics. So the default semantics is around counting
Axel Polleres: adding DISTINCT around full paths only. Other than that we leave the semantics. So the default semantics is around counting ←
14:39:42 <pgearon> AxelPolleres: DISTINCT changes to an existential semantics
Axel Polleres: DISTINCT changes to an existential semantics ←
14:40:34 <pgearon> AxelPolleres: proposal is to add an ALL keyword. kasei's concern is that the resolution has a lock-in to 1 default semantics
Axel Polleres: proposal is to add an ALL keyword. kasei's concern is that the resolution has a lock-in to 1 default semantics ←
14:41:11 <AndyS> I prefer option 6. One implementation. Lower support costs. Natural semantics. Least block on future work. Mixed counting is the minimal way forward.
Andy Seaborne: I prefer option 6. One implementation. Lower support costs. Natural semantics. Least block on future work. Mixed counting is the minimal way forward. ←
14:41:17 <chimezie> the option to have both syntaxes with a later determination of which is the default seems more appealing to me now
Chimezie Ogbuji: the option to have both syntaxes with a later determination of which is the default seems more appealing to me now ←
14:41:51 <chimezie> esp. if both syntaxes/semantics can be (easily) made mutually exclusive
Chimezie Ogbuji: esp. if both syntaxes/semantics can be (easily) made mutually exclusive ←
14:42:03 <kasei> it was a condorcet voting implementation.
Gregory Williams: it was a condorcet voting implementation. ←
14:42:40 <ericP> my order of prefs: default ALL, require DISTINCT & ALL, default DISTINCT
Eric Prud'hommeaux: my order of prefs: default ALL, require DISTINCT & ALL, default DISTINCT ←
14:42:45 <pgearon> AxelPolleres: could add a switch at the query level, but probably don't want to add that as well
Axel Polleres: could add a switch at the query level, but probably don't want to add that as well ←
14:42:56 <ericP> (descending order)
Eric Prud'hommeaux: (descending order) ←
14:44:14 <AxelPolleres> We have various intuitions floating around on what is "intuitive", I am afraid
Axel Polleres: We have various intuitions floating around on what is "intuitive", I am afraid ←
14:44:17 <pgearon> AndyS: 2 classes of operations. Simple like sequence and alternation. Then others like working on arbitrary length paths
Andy Seaborne: 2 classes of operations. Simple like sequence and alternation. Then others like working on arbitrary length paths ←
14:44:48 <pgearon> AndyS: what are the natural expectations and work with that, even if it means different counting in different places
Andy Seaborne: what are the natural expectations and work with that, even if it means different counting in different places ←
14:45:06 <Zakim> +LeeF.a
Zakim IRC Bot: +LeeF.a ←
14:45:10 <pgearon> AndyS: so far we have failed to find what the expectations are in various situations
Andy Seaborne: so far we have failed to find what the expectations are in various situations ←
14:46:09 <pgearon> AxelPolleres: agree with have subtleties on the lower levels, but think our approach can address can address 2 of the 3 concerns
Axel Polleres: agree with have subtleties on the lower levels, but think our approach can address can address 2 of the 3 concerns ←
14:46:30 <AxelPolleres> default ALL, require DISTINCT & ALL, default DISTINCT
Axel Polleres: default ALL, require DISTINCT & ALL, default DISTINCT ←
14:47:25 <AndyS> q-
Andy Seaborne: q- ←
14:48:44 <AxelPolleres> Andy: is "/" also distinct for you, paul?
Axel Polleres: Andy: is "/" also distinct for you, paul? ←
14:48:54 <AxelPolleres> Paul: have to think about that.
Paul Gearon: have to think about that. [ Scribe Assist by Axel Polleres ] ←
14:49:42 <AxelPolleres> Axel: the chileneans definition (p.8) in their paper makes "/" also distinct
Axel Polleres: the chileneans definition (p.8) in their paper makes "/" also distinct [ Scribe Assist by Axel Polleres ] ←
14:50:35 <pgearon> speculating that if our use cases also need / then counting semantics are more likely to be what we'd want
speculating that if our use cases also need / then counting semantics are more likely to be what we'd want ←
14:50:44 <AxelPolleres> PROPOSED: require eithrt DISTINCT or ALL around paths
PROPOSED: require eithrt DISTINCT or ALL around paths ←
14:50:55 <AndyS> We can define { ?x :p/:q ?y } ==> { ?x :p ?a . ?a :q ?y } ie. not as PP, but merely syntax short form. PP is just *,+,?
Andy Seaborne: We can define { ?x :p/:q ?y } ==> { ?x :p ?a . ?a :q ?y } ie. not as PP, but merely syntax short form. PP is just *,+,? ←
14:51:03 <chimezie> +1
Chimezie Ogbuji: +1 ←
14:51:12 <AxelPolleres> +1
Axel Polleres: +1 ←
14:51:13 <cbuilara> +1
Carlos Buil Aranda: +1 ←
14:51:21 <AndyS> -1
Andy Seaborne: -1 ←
14:51:40 <AndyS> (fails on implementation cost issues)
Andy Seaborne: (fails on implementation cost issues) ←
14:51:42 <MattPerry> 0
Matthew Perry: 0 ←
14:51:44 <pgearon> 0
0 ←
14:51:47 <sandro> 0
Sandro Hawke: 0 ←
14:51:51 <kasei> 0 (like this, but would also want to allow syntax without a keyword and let the implementation decide the semantics)
Gregory Williams: 0 (like this, but would also want to allow syntax without a keyword and let the implementation decide the semantics) ←
14:51:56 <ericP> +0
Eric Prud'hommeaux: +0 ←
14:52:07 <Olivier> 0
Olivier Corby: 0 ←
14:52:45 <MattPerry> I would be open to Andy's new simplification
Matthew Perry: I would be open to Andy's new simplification ←
14:52:53 <kasei> AndyS, what does (:p/:q)* do, then?
Gregory Williams: AndyS, what does (:p/:q)* do, then? ←
14:52:59 <AxelPolleres> The standing resolution is still the one from last time.
Axel Polleres: The standing resolution is still the one from last time. ←
14:53:09 <pgearon> AndyS: that would be DISTINCT
Andy Seaborne: that would be DISTINCT ←
14:53:32 <pgearon> isn't just the combination of operations. DISTINCT over something that isn't leads to an overall DISTINCT
isn't just the combination of operations. DISTINCT over something that isn't leads to an overall DISTINCT ←
14:55:33 <pgearon> AxelPolleres: changing the behavior of * and + did not find a majority last time
Axel Polleres: changing the behavior of * and + did not find a majority last time ←
14:55:56 <MattPerry> I think last time we rejected addition of {*},{+},{?}
Matthew Perry: I think last time we rejected addition of {*},{+},{?} ←
14:56:10 <pgearon> AndyS: approaching it from a minimal set of features and punt the rest to future work. This is why I'm suggesting getting rid of {}
Andy Seaborne: approaching it from a minimal set of features and punt the rest to future work. This is why I'm suggesting getting rid of {} ←
14:56:34 <pgearon> AndyS: and also getting rid of counting features m/n
Andy Seaborne: and also getting rid of counting features m/n ←
14:57:18 <pgearon> AndyS: can construct use cases that need it. This is a proposal that covers less
Andy Seaborne: can construct use cases that need it. This is a proposal that covers less ←
14:57:31 <MattPerry> I'm in favor of the simplification. I'm not even sure how I would explain all these variations to a user.
Matthew Perry: I'm in favor of the simplification. I'm not even sure how I would explain all these variations to a user. ←
14:58:11 <pgearon> AxelPolleres: shouldn't ignore discussion from today, but we're no further than the resolution from last time
Axel Polleres: shouldn't ignore discussion from today, but we're no further than the resolution from last time ←
14:58:40 <Zakim> -EricP
Zakim IRC Bot: -EricP ←
14:58:45 <pgearon> AxelPolleres: recall that this is a time-permitting feature and this should not hold up the WG any further
Axel Polleres: recall that this is a time-permitting feature and this should not hold up the WG any further ←
14:59:03 <pgearon> AxelPolleres: need to discuss in email during the coming week
Axel Polleres: need to discuss in email during the coming week ←
14:59:11 <AxelPolleres> let's take it to email
Axel Polleres: let's take it to email ←
14:59:19 <AndyS> zakim, who is on the phone?
Andy Seaborne: zakim, who is on the phone? ←
14:59:19 <Zakim> On the phone I see pgearon, AndyS, Olivier_, AxelPolleres, kasei, SteveH, MattPerry, cbuilara, sandro, LeeF, chimezie (muted), LeeF.a
Zakim IRC Bot: On the phone I see pgearon, AndyS, Olivier_, AxelPolleres, kasei, SteveH, MattPerry, cbuilara, sandro, LeeF, chimezie (muted), LeeF.a ←
14:59:41 <pgearon> adjourned
adjourned ←
14:59:42 <AxelPolleres> adjourned
Axel Polleres: adjourned ←
14:59:51 <Zakim> -sandro
Zakim IRC Bot: -sandro ←
14:59:55 <Zakim> -Olivier_
Zakim IRC Bot: -Olivier_ ←
14:59:59 <Zakim> -cbuilara
Zakim IRC Bot: -cbuilara ←
15:00:01 <AxelPolleres> rrsagent, make records public
Axel Polleres: rrsagent, make records public ←
15:00:09 <Zakim> -SteveH
Zakim IRC Bot: -SteveH ←
15:00:11 <Zakim> -chimezie
Zakim IRC Bot: -chimezie ←
15:00:15 <Zakim> -MattPerry
Zakim IRC Bot: -MattPerry ←
15:00:21 <Zakim> -kasei
Zakim IRC Bot: -kasei ←
15:00:23 <Zakim> -LeeF
Zakim IRC Bot: -LeeF ←
15:00:31 <Zakim> -AxelPolleres
Zakim IRC Bot: -AxelPolleres ←
15:00:48 <AndyS> What are your requirements for a PP design? i.e. principles
Andy Seaborne: What are your requirements for a PP design? i.e. principles ←
15:00:58 <Zakim> -AndyS
Zakim IRC Bot: -AndyS ←
15:01:10 <Zakim> -pgearon
Zakim IRC Bot: -pgearon ←
15:02:04 <AxelPolleres> Andy, maybe a good question we should try to summarize on the list for next week...I think Lee's summary was a good start, but admittedly, I think it left out the lock-in aspect that Greg now brought in.
Axel Polleres: Andy, maybe a good question we should try to summarize on the list for next week...I think Lee's summary was a good start, but admittedly, I think it left out the lock-in aspect that Greg now brought in. ←
15:02:24 <AxelPolleres> need to run.
Axel Polleres: need to run. ←
15:21:58 <kasei> The Chileans may have said they didn't want mixed semantics, but I note their paper doesn't use any examples where that would be an issue.
(No events recorded for 19 minutes)
Gregory Williams: The Chileans may have said they didn't want mixed semantics, but I note their paper doesn't use any examples where that would be an issue. ←
15:22:27 <kasei> They only discuss paths with * and + applied to a predicate (sometimes several times)
Gregory Williams: They only discuss paths with * and + applied to a predicate (sometimes several times) ←
15:35:01 <Zakim> disconnecting the lone participant, LeeF, in SW_(SPARQL)10:00AM
(No events recorded for 12 minutes)
Zakim IRC Bot: disconnecting the lone participant, LeeF, in SW_(SPARQL)10:00AM ←
15:35:02 <Zakim> SW_(SPARQL)10:00AM has ended
Zakim IRC Bot: SW_(SPARQL)10:00AM has ended ←
15:35:02 <Zakim> Attendees were pgearon, AndyS, Olivier_, +43.517.073.aaaa, kasei, SteveH, MattPerry, cbuilara, AxelPolleres, sandro, LeeF, chimezie, EricP
Zakim IRC Bot: Attendees were pgearon, AndyS, Olivier_, +43.517.073.aaaa, kasei, SteveH, MattPerry, cbuilara, AxelPolleres, sandro, LeeF, chimezie, EricP ←
Formatted by CommonScribe
This revision (#1) generated 2012-03-27 16:24:33 UTC by 'pgearon', comments: 'Cleanup of scribing'