Chatlog 2009-09-15

From SPARQL Working Group
Jump to: navigation, search

See original RRSAgent log and preview nicely formatted version.

Please justify/explain all edits to this page, in your "edit summary" text.

<LeeF> Present: AndyS, LeeF, kasei, SimonS, AlexPassant, Luke_Wilson-Mawer, SteveH, bglimm, ivanh, AxelPolleres, EricP, pgearon, Chimezie_Ogbuji, Orri_Erling, Prateek (PrateekJain-WSU) Jain 
13:53:23 <RRSAgent> RRSAgent has joined #sparql
13:53:23 <RRSAgent> logging to http://www.w3.org/2009/09/15-sparql-irc
13:53:25 <trackbot> RRSAgent, make logs world
13:53:25 <Zakim> Zakim has joined #sparql
13:53:27 <trackbot> Zakim, this will be 77277
13:53:27 <Zakim> ok, trackbot; I see SW_(SPARQL)10:00AM scheduled to start in 7 minutes
13:53:28 <trackbot> Meeting: SPARQL Working Group Teleconference
13:53:29 <trackbot> Date: 15 September 2009
13:53:30 <LeeF> zakim, this will be SPARQL
13:53:30 <Zakim> LeeF, Team_(sparql-func)13:02Z is already associated with an irc channel; use 'move SPARQL to here' if you mean to reassociate the channel
13:53:34 <LeeF> Chair: LeeF
13:54:40 <LeeF> LukeWM, are you available as backup scribe if necessary?
13:54:48 <LeeF> hmm, the scribe list is getting a little unmaintained
13:55:01 <LukeWM> yes, sure LeeF
13:55:27 <AndyS> SimonS - I don't think it has been created.  Coudl you create a file in that dir and cvs ci it in (CVS knows nothing about directories :-()
13:55:49 <LeeF> thanks, LukeWM
13:56:03 <SimonS> ok, thanks AndyS
13:56:41 <Zakim> SW_(SPARQL)10:00AM has now started
13:56:47 <Zakim> +??P2
13:57:01 <AndyS> zakim, ??P2 is me
13:57:01 <Zakim> +AndyS; got it
13:57:04 <Zakim> + +1.617.960.aaaa
13:57:23 <LeeF> zakim, aaaa is me
13:57:24 <Zakim> +LeeF; got it
13:57:42 <Zakim> +kasei
13:58:03 <AlexPassant> AlexPassant has joined #sparql
13:58:19 <kasei> is today a 90 minute call?
13:58:29 <Zakim> + +049261287aabb
13:58:40 <SimonS> Zakim, aabb is me
13:58:40 <Zakim> +SimonS; got it
13:58:53 <Zakim> +??P22
13:58:56 <Zakim> +??P24
13:58:57 <AlexPassant> Zakim, ?P22 is me
13:58:57 <Zakim> sorry, AlexPassant, I do not recognize a party named '?P22'
13:59:02 <AlexPassant> Zakim, ??P22 is me
13:59:02 <Zakim> +AlexPassant; got it
13:59:28 <LukeWM> zakim, ??P24 is Garlik
13:59:28 <Zakim> +Garlik; got it
13:59:32 <bglimm> bglimm has joined #SPARQL
13:59:35 <AlexPassant> yep
13:59:39 <LeeF> Scribe: AlexPassant
13:59:42 <LeeF> Scribenick: AlexPassant
13:59:55 <LukeWM> zakim, Garlik has LukeWM,SteveH
14:00:01 <LeeF> zakim, who's on the phone?
14:00:04 <Zakim> +LukeWM, SteveH; got it
14:00:06 <Zakim> On the phone I see AndyS, LeeF, kasei, SimonS, AlexPassant, Garlik
14:00:08 <Zakim> Garlik has LukeWM, SteveH
14:00:14 <Zakim> + +0186528aacc
14:00:25 <bglimm> Zakim, +0186528aacc is bglimm
14:00:30 <Zakim> +bglimm; got it
14:00:31 <ivanh> zakim, dial ivanh-voip
14:00:32 <Zakim> ok, ivanh; the call is being made
14:00:34 <Zakim> +ivanh
14:00:39 <bglimm> Zakim, mute me
14:00:42 <Zakim> bglimm should now be muted
14:01:12 <Zakim> +AxelPolleres
14:01:24 <Zakim> +EricP
14:01:40 <ivanh> zakim, mute me
14:02:06 <Zakim> ivanh should now be muted
14:02:12 <kasei> Zakim, mute me
14:02:18 <AxelPolleres> zakim, mute me
14:02:40 <Zakim> kasei should now be muted
14:02:42 <Zakim> + +1.540.412.aadd
14:02:48 <Zakim> AxelPolleres should now be muted
14:03:00 <pgearon> Zakim, aadd is me
14:03:06 <kasei> muting with Zakim is going to be a hassle if it's always this slow...
14:03:10 <AxelPolleres> Zakim, unmute me
14:03:26 <ivanh> zakim, unmute me
14:03:29 <chimezie> chimezie has joined #sparql
14:03:34 <Zakim> +pgearon; got it
14:03:41 <chimezie> zakim, mute me
14:03:44 <Zakim> AxelPolleres should no longer be muted
14:03:45 <AlexPassant> LeeF: 60 minutes call (instead of 90 minutes initially planned)
14:03:46 <LeeF> topic: admin
14:03:48 <AlexPassant> topic: admin stuff
14:03:51 <LeeF> PROPOSED: Approve minutes at http://www.w3.org/2009/sparql/meeting/2009-09-08
14:03:56 <Zakim> ivanh should no longer be muted
14:03:59 <ericP> q+ to ask if we should schedule 90min calls at 13:30Z
14:04:02 <Zakim> +Chimezie_Ogbuji
14:04:04 <Zakim> Chimezie_Ogbuji should now be muted
14:04:32 <AlexPassant> AxelPolleres: Regrets to be added to the previous minutes
14:04:42 <ericP> q-
14:04:42 <LeeF> RESOLVED: Approve minutes at http://www.w3.org/2009/sparql/meeting/2009-09-08, noting Axel's regrets
14:05:07 <LukeWM> axelsfamily++
14:05:08 <ivanh> +1 to Axel
14:05:18 <pgearon> congrats
14:05:32 <SteveH> SteveH has joined #sparql
14:05:41 <LeeF> http://www.w3.org/2009/sparql/wiki/F2F2
14:05:45 <AlexPassant> LeeF: Update on the F2F status, please edit the wiki
14:06:10 <AlexPassant> ... Liaisons ?
14:06:10 <ivanh> q+
14:06:14 <LeeF> ack ivanh
14:06:28 <AlexPassant> ivanh: RIF will go to CR very soon
14:06:39 <AlexPassant> ... conditional approval need to check with other groups for comments
14:06:43 <AlexPassant> ... but no comments expected
14:06:55 <LeeF> topic: FPWD
14:06:59 <AlexPassant> ... happened yesterday
14:07:02 <AxelPolleres> on RIF: Axel still following up, LC comments closed, going to Cand. Rec ... ah, ivanh reporting already 
14:07:20 <SimonS> http://userpages.uni-koblenz.de/~sschenk/sparql-update-1.0/Overview.xml
14:07:31 <AlexPassant> SimonS: First draft of the update
14:07:39 <AlexPassant> ... issues to put it in cvs
14:07:58 <bglimm> q+ to ask about entailment regimes and updates (deletes)
14:08:02 <SimonS> http://www.w3.org/2009/sparql/docs/update-1.0/
14:08:06 <bglimm> Zakim, unmute me
14:08:07 <Zakim> bglimm should no longer be muted
14:08:21 <AlexPassant> ... slightly outdated version, current status: started from the member submission + wiki content
14:08:33 <AlexPassant> ... discussions on the ML that not yet reflected on the doc (besides wiki content)
14:08:36 <AlexPassant> ... then clean up
14:09:04 <AlexPassant> LeeF: good idea would be to mention where are the current issues
14:09:20 <AlexPassant> ... referencing wiki page with open issues
14:09:26 <AlexPassant> SimonS: Adding an issue section
14:09:31 <AlexPassant> ... for issues unrelated to the features
14:09:37 <AlexPassant> ... and mention other issues inline
14:09:39 <Zakim> + +1.937.775.aaee
14:09:44 <kasei> ummmm... i seem to be listed as an editor on that update-1.0 page(?)
14:10:30 <LeeF> update-1.0 is out of date
14:10:37 <LeeF> the other URL has the most up to date one, kasei
14:10:40 <LeeF> afaict
14:10:44 <pgearon> I wasn't available to help Simon on this iteration. Hoping to pick up the slack with the next one.
14:10:46 <kasei> ok, just as long as that's been fixed :)
14:11:11 <AndyS> -> http://jena.hpl.hp.com/~afs/sparql-1.1.html is combined query and update.
14:11:51 <AlexPassant> SimonS: another internal iteration
14:12:02 <AlexPassant> LeeF: e-mail to be sent later
14:12:09 <AlexPassant> ... good practice for each document
14:12:42 <AlexPassant> ... discuss in the group, then publish
14:12:59 <AlexPassant> ... anybody not involved in X should review X, etc.
14:13:03 <Prateek> Prateek has joined #sparql
14:14:08 <AlexPassant> LeeF: anything needed from the group to query editors ? 
14:14:24 <AlexPassant> SteveH: stuff around select syntax
14:14:43 <AlexPassant> ... can be reolved after FPWD
14:14:47 <AndyS> +1
14:15:19 <LeeF> ack  bglimm
14:15:19 <Zakim> bglimm, you wanted to ask about entailment regimes and updates (deletes)
14:15:41 <AlexPassant> bglimm: Enteilement regime : will it be left open on the update document ?
14:15:50 <chimezie> zakim, please unmute me
14:15:50 <Zakim> Chimezie_Ogbuji should no longer be muted
14:16:02 <chimezie> entailment regimes only appply to 'active' graphs, so I'm not sure if it is impacted
14:17:09 <AxelPolleres> +1 to defer update semantics for higher entailments to entailment regime TF
14:17:15 <LeeF> ISSUE: How can other entailment regimes plug in their semantics to SPARQL/Update?
14:17:15 <trackbot> Created ISSUE-40 - How can other entailment regimes plug in their semantics to SPARQL/Update? ; please complete additional details at http://www.w3.org/2009/sparql/track/issues/40/edit .
14:17:46 <bglimm> Zakim, mute me
14:17:46 <Zakim> bglimm should now be muted
14:17:47 <LeeF> q?
14:18:04 <LeeF> topic: Service Description
14:18:04 <AlexPassant> LeeF: anything else about the documents themselves ?
14:18:22 <AlexPassant> LeeF: would like to reach a decision about the discovery mechanism
14:19:03 <AlexPassant> ... polls - speak if you are concerned by any of the proposals
14:19:08 <kasei> I'd like to see options 8 and 7' (the RDFa one) be discussed in addition to the ones we've already had strawpolls on.
14:19:33 <kasei> Zakim, unmute me
14:19:33 <Zakim> kasei should no longer be muted
14:19:48 <AlexPassant> ... kasei to resume current status
14:20:01 <AlexPassant> kasei: did my best to summariwe the pros / cons of current proposals
14:20:22 <AlexPassant> ... optin 1: link header in http and/or html
14:20:28 <AlexPassant> ... will link to a service description document
14:20:56 <AlexPassant> ... option 2 : HTTP OPTION
14:20:59 <AlexPassant> ... * vote against
14:21:03 <AlexPassant> ... 8 vote against
14:21:10 <SteveH> my objection to OPTION was cache related
14:21:30 <AlexPassant> ... difficult to query
14:21:41 <AlexPassant> ... option 7: content negociation on the endpoint URI
14:21:45 <AlexPassant> ... 4/1/4
14:21:58 <AlexPassant> ... biggest point against would be the reactions of HTTP purists
14:22:26 <AlexPassant> ... as not identical resources will be described (e.g. web form)
14:22:30 <AlexPassant> ... to be discussed:
14:22:45 <AlexPassant> ... option 7' RDFa version of the Service Description
14:22:56 <AlexPassant> ... encoded in the HTML page / form
14:23:12 <LeeF> q+ to ask if 7' has the opposite negative of option 7
14:23:19 <AlexPassant> q+ for RDFa and (non-X)HTML
14:23:25 <AlexPassant> ... option 8
14:23:31 <AlexPassant> ... implementation issues mentioned by Steve
14:23:50 <AlexPassant> LeeF: Straw poll needed
14:24:02 <Zakim> +[IPcaller]
14:24:30 <AlexPassant> ... option 7' opposite negative of the conneg option
14:24:42 <AlexPassant> ... return any sort of HTML just to encode the RDFa
14:24:43 <SteveH> and the drafback of the conneg option
14:24:46 <LeeF> ack me
14:24:46 <Zakim> LeeF, you wanted to ask if 7' has the opposite negative of option 7
14:24:46 <pgearon> This was my concern
14:24:56 <LeeF> q?
14:25:00 <LeeF> ack AlexPassant
14:25:00 <Zakim> AlexPassant, you wanted to discuss RDFa and (non-X)HTML
14:25:01 <ivanh> I agree with Lee, 7' is just a more detailed version of 7
14:25:02 <AxelPolleres> q+ on Option 7' variations.
14:25:49 <AlexPassant> AlexPassant: issue of RDFa in non-X HTML
14:25:57 <AlexPassant> ... more political than technical decision
14:26:01 <AxelPolleres> ack me
14:26:01 <Zakim> AxelPolleres, you wanted to comment on Option 7' variations.
14:26:08 <AlexPassant> .. will imply that endpoints / forms should be XHTML
14:26:12 <SteveH> q+ to talk about reverse proxies
14:26:18 <LeeF> ack AxelPolleres
14:26:26 <AndyS> q+ on RDFa and who authors forms
14:26:29 <ivanh> q+
14:26:37 <kasei> I suppose GRDDL is also an option.
14:26:45 <ivanh> q-
14:26:55 <AlexPassant> AxelPolleres: content negociation could return pure RDF or HTML+RDFa
14:27:08 <LeeF> q?
14:27:33 <LeeF> ack AndyS
14:27:33 <Zakim> AndyS, you wanted to comment on RDFa and who authors forms
14:27:53 <AlexPassant> AndyS: people may not have complete control on the URL of the endpoint
14:28:13 <AxelPolleres> what I meant is, independent of whether content negotiation is supported, we allow both RDFa+HTML or pure RDF/XML as as service descriptions.
14:28:19 <kasei> q+ to ask AndyS a followup question
14:28:27 <LeeF> ack kasei
14:28:27 <Zakim> kasei, you wanted to ask AndyS a followup question
14:28:44 <AlexPassant> kasei: will it affect the HTTP headers of the page
14:28:50 <AlexPassant> AndyS: would have less effet
14:28:57 <AlexPassant> ... data is more under control of the service provider
14:29:03 <LeeF> AxelPolleres, I don't understand what you mean by independent of content negotiation. How would this look without content negotiation?
14:29:05 <pgearon> +q to ask about RDFa processors in JS
14:29:10 <ivanh> q+
14:29:18 <AlexPassant> kasei: proxy ownership issue
14:29:24 <chimezie> in ruling these out are we considering these mutually exclusive options?
14:29:42 <LeeF> ack pgearon
14:29:42 <Zakim> pgearon, you wanted to ask about RDFa processors in JS
14:30:10 <LeeF> ack ivanh
14:30:16 <AlexPassant> pgearon: any RDFa library in javascript ?
14:30:19 <AlexPassant> LeeF: yes
14:30:28 <AlexPassant> ivanh: would like to put the RDFa issue aside for a moment
14:31:03 <AxelPolleres> +1 to ivanh, allowing RDFa is orthogonal to conneg
14:31:21 <kasei> ivanh: isn't this exactly why encoding in RDFa would be a good thing? just one representation of the resource, but with RDF in it.
14:32:23 <AlexPassant> LeeF: acknowledge the option of people returning form makes it a little easier
14:32:36 <AlexPassant> ... purist would argue that there is no for in the conneg
14:32:51 <LeeF> q?
14:33:08 <AlexPassant> ... separate proposal on the content negociation ?
14:33:18 <chimezie> i think 'self-describing' service resource is more conservative than pure content negotiation
14:33:26 <kasei> q+
14:33:30 <AlexPassant> why cannot we describe the form in the conneg. RDF ?
14:33:40 <SteveH> yes, strawpoll
14:33:51 <LeeF> ack kasei
14:34:04 <ivanh> q+
14:34:04 <AlexPassant> kasei: possible proposal, RDFa without conneg
14:34:15 <AlexPassant> ... complaints of the purists as it's not the same resource
14:35:02 <AlexPassant> LeeF: do not see RDFa as required
14:35:12 <AlexPassant> ... strawpoll on connect with RDFa as an option
14:35:14 <LeeF> ack ivanh
14:35:47 <AlexPassant> ivanh: issue is not RDF/RDFa but what is the URI of the resource 
14:35:56 <chimezie> though i don't think the alternative should require RDFa but be  one where we *dont* do con neg but encourage RDFa
14:36:07 <LeeF> zakim, who's on the phone?
14:36:07 <Zakim> On the phone I see AndyS, LeeF, kasei, SimonS, AlexPassant, Garlik, bglimm (muted), ivanh, AxelPolleres, EricP, pgearon, Chimezie_Ogbuji, +1.937.775.aaee, [IPcaller]
14:36:10 <Zakim> Garlik has LukeWM, SteveH
14:36:19 <LeeF> zakim, who's speaking?
14:36:29 <Zakim> LeeF, listening for 10 seconds I heard sound from the following: AndyS (9%), LeeF (14%), ivanh (59%)
14:37:22 <AlexPassant> ... the resource = the service description
14:37:29 <AxelPolleres> Would that be the Option which is now being discussed? "RDFa+HTML or RDF/XML at the �service endpoint� URL are both valid ways to serve the service description"�?
14:38:03 <chimezie> I think ivanh is saying that unless the RDFa uses the endpoint URI explicitely, the issue of what we are identifying doesn't come up
14:38:16 <LeeF> zakim, aaee is Prateek
14:38:17 <Zakim> +Prateek; got it
14:38:19 <LeeF> zakim, IPCaller is Orri
14:38:19 <Zakim> +Orri; got it
14:38:31 <LeeF> q?
14:38:37 <SteveH> can I talk before the poll
14:38:38 <SteveH> ?
14:38:59 <LeeF> ack SteveH
14:38:59 <Zakim> SteveH, you wanted to talk about reverse proxies
14:39:00 <AlexPassant> LeeF: strawpoll on option: SD served via conneg w/ pure RDF + RDFa in XHTML
14:39:16 <AlexPassant> SteveH: reverse proxies become very common
14:39:22 <AlexPassant> ... esp w/ webservices, etc.
14:39:39 <AlexPassant> ... problem is that the SPARQL endpoint cannot get the URL it is called from
14:39:46 <ivanh> zakim, drop me
14:39:46 <Zakim> ivanh is being disconnected
14:39:48 <Zakim> -ivanh
14:39:53 <AlexPassant> ... unambiguously pointing back to the client
14:39:55 <ivanh> zakim, dial ivanh-voip
14:39:55 <Zakim> ok, ivanh; the call is being made
14:39:57 <Zakim> +ivanh
14:40:45 <AxelPolleres> q+ to ask steveh whether this isn't an orthogonal issue? remember we discussed that the discription itself can use a bnode for the endpoint.
14:40:54 <AlexPassant> ericP: any way to talk about the URI even with the proxy
14:41:03 <AxelPolleres> ack me
14:41:03 <Zakim> AxelPolleres, you wanted to ask steveh whether this isn't an orthogonal issue? remember we discussed that the discription itself can use a bnode for the endpoint.
14:41:05 <AndyS> Return a bnode, not <foo> (semi :-)
14:41:17 <AlexPassant> AxelPolleres: orthogonal issue ?
14:41:27 <SteveH> I can have a proxy URI which is <http://foo.com/bar> where the endpoint is <http://bar.com/baz>
14:41:35 <AlexPassant> ... if we get the URI we get the description ?
14:41:46 <AlexPassant> ... discussions on the ML if the description itself whould be on a blank node
14:42:22 <chimezie> I can see the general confusion with identifying an endpoint behind a rev proxy, but i think empty URI ref handles it (as well a s con neg) but as Axel  said , it is orthogonal, because the descriptions don't have to reference the endpoint
14:43:31 <AlexPassant> SteveH: nothing suggest you may have a / at the end
14:43:47 <Prateek> Prateek has joined #sparql
14:43:50 <AxelPolleres> chime, the description *can* have a reference to the endpoint, but then rather by an attribute denoting the "official" endpoint URL, I'd say e.g. [a endpoint; endpointURL <http://endpointURL> ] .
14:43:50 <kasei> how is <> different in this respect from <?serviceDescription> ?
14:43:58 <AlexPassant> LeeF: SD doesn't need to refer to the service with that URI ?
14:44:07 <AlexPassant> SteveH: depends on the exact defintion of the SD
14:44:14 <AlexPassant> ... able to talk about the endpoint
14:44:28 <AlexPassant> ... e.g. fetch the service description: needs to know what we're talking about
14:44:56 <LeeF> q?
14:45:11 <SteveH> base <http://foo.com/bar> + <?foo> gives <http://foo.com/?foo>
14:45:30 <SteveH> kasei, ^^
14:45:31 <LeeF> option 7': conneg + option to return RDFa for service descriptin in hTML
14:45:39 <SteveH> +1
14:45:42 <kasei> +1
14:45:50 <bglimm> 0
14:45:51 <LeeF> 0
14:45:51 <ericP> -1
14:45:52 <LukeWM> +1
14:45:54 <AlexPassant> +1
14:45:55 <chimezie> +1
14:45:56 <pgearon> -1
14:45:56 <ivanh> 0
14:45:59 <SimonS> +1
14:46:02 <AxelPolleres> +1
14:46:04 <AndyS> 0
14:46:31 <Prateek> 0
14:47:21 <chimezie> RDFa, doesn't require use of accept headers
14:47:53 <kasei> q+
14:47:58 <SteveH> AlexPassant, you need to implement proper conneg to implement the sparql results spec + json anyway, and many people do that
14:48:36 <AlexPassant> SteveH: I mean *real* proper conneg (see previous thread on the LOD mailing lists, really a pain to get it clean)
14:49:07 <LeeF> ack kasei
14:49:41 <SteveH> +1 to kasei 
14:49:41 <LukeWM> q+
14:49:57 <AlexPassant> kasei: query form in the HTML is a different issue
14:50:09 <AlexPassant> ericP: pb is that we can have 2 descriptions of the same resource
14:50:24 <AlexPassant> kasei: pushing for the HTML form or for the service description ?
14:50:24 <LukeWM> ack me
14:50:27 <LeeF> ack LukeWM
14:51:25 <AlexPassant> LeeF: option 8 - new protocol verb, e.g. endpoint?servicedesc
14:51:26 <LukeWM> AlexPassant, I think that kasei had already said it.
14:51:42 <LukeWM> LukeWM: can we just mandate that there is no query form.
14:51:53 <AlexPassant> ... issue: nothing to refer to the URI if using reverse proxy
14:52:29 <SteveH> q+
14:52:51 <LeeF> ack SteveH
14:54:09 <LeeF> . /sparql?serviceDescription
14:54:18 <SteveH> -0.5
14:54:19 <AlexPassant> +1
14:54:21 <pgearon> +1
14:54:21 <ericP> 0
14:54:23 <LukeWM> 0
14:54:24 <ivanh> -1
14:54:25 <AndyS> +1
14:54:27 <AxelPolleres> 0
14:54:28 <LeeF> '0
14:54:28 <kasei> 0
14:54:29 <bglimm> 0
14:54:30 <chimezie> 0
14:54:32 <SimonS> 0
14:55:33 <Prateek> 0
14:55:42 <ivanh> my feeling is that if I want to use the query endpoint to query into the service description it seems to be a bit too convoluted to be worth it...
14:55:54 <AlexPassant> LeeF: most support for conneg / RDFa: i.e. return SD at the URL of the endpoint
14:56:06 <kasei> +1 to LeeF's characterization of option 7
14:56:11 <SteveH> +1
14:56:17 <SteveH> we dont need to mention conneg
14:56:33 <AndyS> RDFa is a mention of best practice?  Did I hear right?
14:57:03 <kasei> and/or GRDDL or just serving plain RDF...
14:57:04 <AlexPassant> ... debate on recipes , which ones do we want to include
14:57:05 <SteveH> ...arguably an HTML form is the way you describe the endpoint access method in HTML
14:57:10 <ivanh> I do think the document should mandate RDFa
14:57:17 <AlexPassant> ... editorial latitude
14:57:22 <AndyS> +1 to plain RDF as 1st class choice.
14:57:29 <AlexPassant> +1 for Lees proposal and mention of RDFa in the doc
14:57:56 <chimezie> http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/doc/selfDescribingDocuments.html#RDFSection
14:58:08 <AlexPassant> topic: AOB
14:58:16 <AxelPolleres> ISSUE-28
14:58:17 <AlexPassant> SimonS: issue with update + entailment
14:58:20 <AlexPassant> ... issue 28
14:58:53 <SteveH> ericP, sure
14:59:13 <AlexPassant> ... e-mnail to be sent in the week
14:59:15 <AxelPolleres> Can you paste the URI?
14:59:19 <ivanh> yep, issues 28 and 40 are the same...
14:59:50 <Zakim> -Chimezie_Ogbuji
14:59:57 <AlexPassant> LeeF: please update the F2F and SELECT query syntax comments are welcome on the mailing list
14:59:59 <ivanh> better more than none:-)
15:00:01 <Zakim> -Orri
15:00:02 <ivanh> zakim, drop me
15:00:02 <Zakim> ivanh is being disconnected
15:00:04 <Zakim> -ivanh
15:00:04 <Zakim> -LeeF
15:00:05 <LukeWM> bye
15:00:10 <AlexPassant> bye
15:00:13 <bglimm> bye
15:00:14 <Zakim> -Prateek
15:00:17 <Zakim> -bglimm
15:00:19 <Zakim> -AxelPolleres
15:00:20 <SimonS> Paul, could you stay for a second?
15:00:32 <LeeF> AlexPassant, thanks for scribing
15:00:35 <LukeWM> ericP, do you mind if I listen in to this discussion?
15:00:40 <ericP> not at all
15:00:41 <Zakim> -AlexPassant
15:00:45 <ericP> please
15:00:45 <LukeWM> cool
15:04:43 <Zakim> -SimonS
15:10:21 <kasei> (still listening in) it's not the case that the endpoint necessarily dereferences a FROM
15:11:07 <LeeF> AlexPassant, can you take a shot at the minutes as per http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-dawg/2009AprJun/0406.html ?
15:15:47 <SimonS> SimonS has left #sparql
15:17:42 <Zakim> -AndyS
# SPECIAL MARKER FOR CHATSYNC.  DO NOT EDIT THIS LINE OR BELOW.  SRCLINESUSED=00000384