Chatlog 2010-03-30

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.

13:57:52 <RRSAgent> RRSAgent has joined #sparql
13:57:52 <RRSAgent> logging to http://www.w3.org/2010/03/30-sparql-irc
13:58:01 <Zakim> Zakim has joined #sparql
13:58:07 <MattPerry> MattPerry has joined #sparql
13:58:14 <AxelPolleres> trackbot, start meeting
13:58:14 <AxelPolleres> chair: Axel Polleres
13:58:16 <trackbot> RRSAgent, make logs world
13:58:18 <trackbot> Zakim, this will be 77277
13:58:18 <Zakim> ok, trackbot; I see SW_(SPARQL)10:00AM scheduled to start in 2 minutes
13:58:19 <trackbot> Meeting: SPARQL Working Group Teleconference
13:58:19 <trackbot> Date: 30 March 2010
13:58:37 <AxelPolleres> Zakim, who is on the phone?
13:58:37 <Zakim> SW_(SPARQL)10:00AM has not yet started, AxelPolleres
13:58:39 <Zakim> On IRC I see MattPerry, Zakim, RRSAgent, AxelPolleres, dcharbon2, OlivierCorby, bglimm, LeeF, SteveH, ivan, AndyS, karl, pgearon, iv_an_ru, ericP, sandro, AlexPassant, kasei,
13:58:42 <Zakim> ... trackbot
13:58:49 <SteveH_> SteveH_ has joined #sparql
13:59:04 <AxelPolleres> scribe: David Charboneau
13:59:27 <AxelPolleres> scribenick: dcharbon2
14:00:07 <kasei> Zakim?
14:00:10 <AxelPolleres> Zakim, who is on the phone?
14:00:10 <Zakim> SW_(SPARQL)10:00AM has not yet started, AxelPolleres
14:00:11 <Zakim> On IRC I see SteveH, MattPerry, Zakim, RRSAgent, AxelPolleres, dcharbon2, OlivierCorby, bglimm, LeeF, ivan, AndyS, karl, pgearon, iv_an_ru, ericP, sandro, AlexPassant, kasei,
14:00:14 <Zakim> ... trackbot
14:00:58 <bglimm> Zakim, who is on the phone?
14:01:10 <AxelPolleres> Zakim, who is on the phone?
14:01:12 <bglimm> Zakim, who is on the phone?
14:01:12 <Zakim> SW_(SPARQL)10:00AM has not yet started, bglimm
14:01:14 <Zakim> On IRC I see SteveH, MattPerry, Zakim, RRSAgent, AxelPolleres, dcharbon2, OlivierCorby, bglimm, LeeF, ivan, AndyS, karl, pgearon, iv_an_ru, ericP, sandro, AlexPassant, kasei,
14:01:16 <Zakim> ... trackbot
14:01:25 <bglimm> Zakim, this is SPARQL
14:01:25 <Zakim> ok, bglimm; that matches SW_(SPARQL)10:00AM
14:01:26 <AxelPolleres> trackbot, start meeting
14:01:28 <trackbot> RRSAgent, make logs world
14:01:30 <trackbot> Zakim, this will be 77277
14:01:30 <Zakim> ok, trackbot; I see SW_(SPARQL)10:00AM scheduled to start now
14:01:31 <trackbot> Meeting: SPARQL Working Group Teleconference
14:01:31 <trackbot> Date: 30 March 2010
14:01:32 <pgearon> I've dialied in, but Zakim didn't mention that I'm here
14:01:47 <SteveH> Zakim, who's on the phone?
14:01:47 <Zakim> I notice SW_(SPARQL)10:00AM has restarted
14:01:49 <Zakim> On the phone I see +03539149aaaa, dcharbon2, ??P25, OlivierCorby, bglimm, +0208439aabb, +1.540.412.aacc, Souri, ??P36
14:01:49 <bglimm> Zakim, who is on the phone?
14:01:49 <Zakim> On the phone I see +03539149aaaa, dcharbon2, ??P25, OlivierCorby, bglimm, +0208439aabb, +1.540.412.aacc, Souri, ??P36
14:02:01 <AxelPolleres> Zakim, aaaa is me
14:02:01 <Zakim> +AxelPolleres; got it
14:02:02 <pgearon> zakim, aacc is me
14:02:04 <Zakim> +pgearon; got it
14:02:04 <SteveH> Zakim, aabb is ms
14:02:05 <dcharbon2> zakim, mute me
14:02:06 <Zakim> +ms; got it
14:02:08 <Zakim> dcharbon2 should now be muted
14:02:10 <Zakim> +??P40
14:02:10 <ivan> zakim, dial ivan-voip
14:02:13 <Zakim> ok, ivan; the call is being made
14:02:13 <AndyS> zakim, ??P40 is me
14:02:14 <Zakim> +Ivan
14:02:16 <Zakim> +AndyS; got it
14:02:22 <kasei> Zakim, P25 is me
14:02:30 <Zakim> sorry, kasei, I do not recognize a party named 'P25'
14:02:37 <kasei> Zakim, ??P25 is me
14:02:42 <Zakim> +kasei; got it
14:03:00 <MattPerry> zakim, who is on the phone?
14:03:00 <Zakim> On the phone I see AxelPolleres, dcharbon2 (muted), kasei, OlivierCorby, bglimm, ms, pgearon, Souri, ??P36, AndyS, Ivan
14:03:11 <AxelPolleres> agenda http://www.w3.org/2009/sparql/wiki/Agenda-2010-03-30
14:03:13 <dcharbon2> AxelPolleres: Still need to write up some of the notes from f2f
14:03:14 <MattPerry> zakim, ??P36 is me
14:03:14 <Zakim> +MattPerry; got it
14:03:19 <SteveH> Zakim, ms is me
14:03:19 <Zakim> +SteveH; got it
14:03:39 <Zakim> +??P45
14:03:44 <dcharbon2> AxelPolleres: Thank everyone for productive f2f. Goal for today is to try to settle issues to get to publications
14:04:03 <dcharbon2> Minutes are out there. Next time go into more technical issues. Today is more wrap up of f2f
14:04:11 <chimezie> chimezie has joined #sparql
14:04:19 <dcharbon2> ... try to get to publication round
14:04:27 <AxelPolleres> http://www.w3.org/2009/sparql/meeting/2010-03-23
14:04:38 <Zakim> + +1.216.445.aadd
14:04:47 <AxelPolleres> PROPOSED: approve minutes at http://www.w3.org/2009/sparql/meeting/2010-03-23
14:04:59 <chimezie> Zakim, +1.216.445.aadd is me
14:04:59 <Zakim> +chimezie; got it
14:05:04 <dcharbon2> +1
14:05:16 <AxelPolleres> RESOLVED: approve minutes at http://www.w3.org/2009/sparql/meeting/2010-03-23
14:05:23 <dcharbon2> AxelPolleres: Next is the F2F minutes
14:05:25 <chimezie> Zakim, mute me
14:05:25 <Zakim> chimezie should now be muted
14:05:33 <dcharbon2> ... perhaps not everyone has had time to look through them
14:05:41 <dcharbon2> ... don't propose to approve today
14:05:58 <dcharbon2> ... let AxelPolleres know if there are any changes that need to be made, anything missing
14:06:00 <dcharbon2> ... per email
14:06:10 <dcharbon2> AxelPolleres: Next meeting is in one week.
14:06:17 <AxelPolleres> 2010-04-06 (or is that too tight with Easter?) 
14:06:19 <dcharbon2> ... is this okay for everyone?
14:06:21 <bglimm> I'll be away
14:06:25 <AndyS> Fine for me.
14:06:33 <kasei> I won't be able to make next week.
14:06:34 <ivan> regrets for a meetin in a week
14:06:38 <Zakim> +Sandro
14:06:39 <dcharbon2> I could make it
14:06:40 <pgearon> I can be here
14:06:45 <MattPerry> will be ok for me
14:06:57 <OlivierCorby> OK for the 6
14:06:58 <AxelPolleres> lee, would you be able to make it next week?
14:07:18 <dcharbon2> AxelPolleres: about 1/2 people can make it
14:07:29 <dcharbon2> ... leave it up to Lee to decide, AxelPolleres won't be there
14:07:32 <Souri> Souri has joined #sparql
14:07:49 <dcharbon2> ... Have on record who can make it, see if there are topics that could be covered amongst those who can make it
14:08:08 <bglimm> Zakim, mute me
14:08:08 <Zakim> bglimm should now be muted
14:08:09 <AxelPolleres> anybody please indicate on IRC whether you'd be available for a TC in one week!
14:08:26 <dcharbon2> AxelPolleres: Comments handling, go quickly through comments to see where we are
14:08:28 <AxelPolleres> topic: comments
14:08:29 <AndyS> Could we decide one way of the other please?  Leaving to last minute is a bit of a nuisance.
14:08:38 <SteveH> +1
14:08:39 <AxelPolleres> http://www.w3.org/2009/sparql/wiki/Comments
14:08:43 <SteveH> [to AndyS]
14:09:10 <AndyS> Yes
14:09:14 <pgearon> OK here
14:09:16 <bglimm> ok
14:09:22 <dcharbon2> AxelPolleres: Will try to get answer from Lee on whether he can chair today and get an email out by tomorrow latest, ok?
14:09:27 <AxelPolleres> ACTION: Axel to clarify by tomorrow latest whether we'll have a TC next week
14:09:27 <trackbot> Created ACTION-215 - Clarify by tomorrow latest whether we'll have a TC next week [on Axel Polleres - due 2010-04-06].
14:09:28 <dcharbon2> AndyS: Okay for me
14:10:06 <dcharbon2> AxelPolleres: There are many open - is anyone working on a response for any of the open ones?
14:10:11 <AndyS> q+
14:10:26 <dcharbon2> AndyS: all marked for property paths I will do
14:10:34 <dcharbon2> ... I will probably do them all in a single reply
14:10:43 <dcharbon2> ... several are about duplicates, so will address them all at once
14:10:51 <dcharbon2> AxelPolleres: I will assign those all to you
14:11:09 <dcharbon2> AxelPolleres: Is the last one in that group?
14:11:25 <dcharbon2> AndyS: no, there was a followup that that wasn't a comment
14:11:42 <AxelPolleres> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-dawg-comments/2010Mar/0002.html
14:11:42 <dcharbon2> ... no property paths associated with it if I remember correctly
14:11:54 <dcharbon2> AxelPolleres: Is this the message we're talking about?
14:12:14 <dcharbon2> AndyS: yes. His message on the 23rd, which is a forward
14:12:19 <AndyS> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-dawg-comments/2010Mar/0005.html
14:12:26 <kasei> I need to send off the NH-1 response based on the F2F discussion. Will confirm draft with the list first.
14:12:42 <dcharbon2> AxelPolleres: 4 can be taken off
14:12:48 <LeeF> Yes, I can make next week's call 
14:13:10 <dcharbon2> AxelPolleres: who would be taking over the one for aggregates?
14:13:26 <dcharbon2> SteveH: Have you got a link to rv4?
14:13:30 <AxelPolleres> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-dawg-comments/2010Mar/0002.html
14:13:38 <dcharbon2> AxelPolleres: it was cc'd to the comments list right?
14:13:54 <dcharbon2> SteveH: there was a followup that it wasn't comment, just feedback
14:14:02 <dcharbon2> AndyS: that was just about the property paths
14:14:14 <dcharbon2> AxelPolleres: it would be good if you could have another look
14:14:18 <dcharbon2> SteveH: okay
14:14:32 <dcharbon2> AxelPolleres: I will fill that in in the comments list, assigning to SteveH 
14:15:09 <dcharbon2> AxelPolleres: There is a comment from Nicolai on update syntax
14:15:13 <dcharbon2> ... on the 18th
14:15:14 <AndyS> ED-1 
14:15:20 <AxelPolleres> RV-4 to SteveH, 
14:15:29 <AxelPolleres> NA-1 http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-dawg-comments/2010Mar/0000.html
14:15:52 <AxelPolleres> q?
14:15:58 <dcharbon2> AxelPolleres: this one is about insert/delete
14:16:01 <AndyS>  Unassigned: ED-1, ST-1, RV-3, NA-1, RV-4 (now to Steve)
14:16:03 <AndyS> ack me
14:16:07 <chimezie> i can hear loud keyboard activity
14:16:17 <pgearon> me is getting so much typing noise I cannot hear Axel
14:17:09 <dcharbon2> AxelPolleres: we discussed this at the f2f and the conclusion was that we would not want to make this combination having query and udpate in this round, though we acknowledged it was interesting
14:17:22 <dcharbon2> ... anyone interested in drafting response, otherwise I will
14:17:25 <AxelPolleres> ACTION: draft response for NA-1
14:17:25 <trackbot> Sorry, couldn't find user - draft
14:17:27 <dcharbon2> ... I will draft the resposne
14:17:39 <dcharbon2> s/response/resposne
14:18:00 <dcharbon2> AxelPolleres: There is one open on aggregates and property paths
14:18:21 <dcharbon2> ... SteveH , do you think you can address RV-3, at least the aggregates part?
14:18:39 <dcharbon2> AxelPolleres: there is a reply from both of you, it seems to be fine, right?
14:18:52 <dcharbon2> SteveH: there is a response from Rob that he is okay with the response
14:19:06 <dcharbon2> AxelPolleres: RV-4 can be considered as the open comment
14:19:22 <dcharbon2> SteveH: in response to RV-4 I include a request that RV-3 is closed as well
14:19:27 <dcharbon2> AxelPolleres: Ok, good
14:19:45 <dcharbon2> AndyS: Steve, you said that response to RV-3 is as an individual?
14:19:51 <dcharbon2> SteveH: I may have confused 2 and 3
14:20:26 <AxelPolleres> ACTION: steve to ask Rob Vesse in response to RV-4 whether  RV-3 has been addresses satisfactory.
14:20:26 <trackbot> Created ACTION-216 - Ask Rob Vesse in response to RV-4 whether  RV-3 has been addresses satisfactory. [on Steve Harris - due 2010-04-06].
14:20:34 <dcharbon2> AxelPolleres: Suggest add sentence in response to RV-4 include a link and ask if he is satisfied with the response he's got so far
14:20:41 <dcharbon2> SteveH: that's fine
14:20:49 <AxelPolleres> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-dawg-comments/2010Feb/0015.html
14:20:51 <AxelPolleres> ST-1
14:21:08 <dcharbon2> AxelPolleres: request for named graph templates everywhere
14:21:27 <dcharbon2> ... not sure whether we discussed that at all or ..
14:21:43 <dcharbon2> SteveH: we discussed the construct part but don't think we came to a conclusion
14:21:53 <dcharbon2> AxelPolleres: Are we able to draft a response or not?
14:22:04 <dcharbon2> SteveH: Probably not till we've discussed it I think?
14:22:24 <dcharbon2> AxelPolleres: Is it okay to respond while the issue is open for us? Or respond at least that we are discussing it?
14:22:36 <dcharbon2> SteveH: no strong feeling - I think I responded that this is an open issue
14:22:52 <dcharbon2> .. I think that responding it's still open would be a reasonable response?
14:23:00 <dcharbon2> AxelPolleres: Anyone to do this?
14:23:11 <dcharbon2> AndyS: why not assign it to the editor?
14:23:18 <dcharbon2> AxelPolleres: is paul on the call?
14:23:23 <dcharbon2> pgearon: yes
14:23:36 <dcharbon2> AxelPolleres: can we assign that to you and have you keep track of it?
14:23:39 <dcharbon2> pgearon: yeah, ok
14:23:39 <LeeF> Before LC, I don't see the need to reply before we've addressed the issue - there is no time constraint (there's also not anything wrong with replying that we're tsill considering something, i just don't think it's necessary)
14:23:44 <AxelPolleres> ACTION: Paul to draft response on ST-1
14:23:44 <trackbot> Created ACTION-217 - Draft response on ST-1 [on Paul Gearon - due 2010-04-06].
14:24:01 <AxelPolleres> ED-1
14:24:10 <AndyS> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-dawg-comments/2010Feb/0006.html
14:24:15 <dcharbon2> AxelPolleres: Next open is Emanuele on aggregate syntax
14:24:25 <dcharbon2> AxelPolleres: I answered that personally 
14:24:32 <dcharbon2> ... next was for him to explain on some details
14:24:43 <dcharbon2> ... I will put myself here and check back here if there are any open issues
14:24:51 <AxelPolleres> ACTION: Axel to check back on ED-1
14:24:51 <trackbot> Created ACTION-218 - Check back on ED-1 [on Axel Polleres - due 2010-04-06].
14:25:11 <dcharbon2> AxelPolleres: we have some open on property paths - RN-1
14:25:16 <dcharbon2> ... from January
14:25:24 <AxelPolleres> RN-1 http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-dawg-comments/2010Jan/0000.html
14:25:48 <dcharbon2> AxelPolleres: There are some replies, it seems
14:25:59 <pgearon> not precisely
14:26:08 <dcharbon2> ... you sent a reply on that, Paul, but I don't know if this can be considered as a reply
14:26:15 <dcharbon2> pgearon: no, this isn't officially a reply
14:26:24 <dcharbon2> ... I sent out a request for clarification/comments
14:26:33 <dcharbon2> ... Richard ended up in the conversation with us
14:26:45 <dcharbon2> ... formally hasn't been responded to, informally has been
14:26:57 <dcharbon2> AxelPolleres: can you follow up with him to see if he needs a further response?
14:27:00 <AxelPolleres> ACTION: Paul to check back whether RN-1 needs to be further addressed
14:27:00 <trackbot> Created ACTION-219 - Check back whether RN-1 needs to be further addressed [on Paul Gearon - due 2010-04-06].
14:27:00 <dcharbon2> pgearon: ok, I will
14:27:23 <AxelPolleres> topic:liaisons
14:27:34 <AndyS> Axel - are you going to update the comment wiki page?
14:27:41 <dcharbon2> AxelPolleres: Is there anything new on liasons, RIF/RDF/etc..
14:28:04 <dcharbon2> Orri: identifying the issues there
14:28:10 <dcharbon2> ... for RDF
14:28:26 <dcharbon2> ... converging aggreement on syntax - nothing that SPARQL group should worry about
14:28:42 <dcharbon2> AxelPolleres: sandro?
14:29:11 <dcharbon2> sandro: RIF did decide that it has exit met criteria and will move to publication in next few weeks. No impact to SPARQL
14:29:23 <AxelPolleres> http://www.w3.org/2009/sparql/meeting/2010-03-25
14:29:25 <dcharbon2> AxelPolleres: have minutes from f2f here
14:29:29 <AxelPolleres> http://www.w3.org/2009/sparql/meeting/2010-03-26
14:29:32 <dcharbon2> ... rough minutes
14:30:02 <dcharbon2> AxelPolleres: do we want to go quickly through the resolutions, explain what they mean for anyone who wasn't present
14:30:26 <dcharbon2> ... first two resolutions were about getting the entailment and property path features more weight by these resolutions
14:30:36 <dcharbon2> ... saying will carry them over by rec
14:30:44 <dcharbon2> ... 3rd resolution closed issue-20
14:31:05 <AndyS> http://www.w3.org/2009/sparql/wiki/index.php?title=Lees_Update_Graph_Model&oldid=1995
14:31:12 <dcharbon2> ... which was by adoption of Lee's graph model
14:31:18 <AxelPolleres> http://www.w3.org/2009/sparql/wiki/Lees_Update_Graph_Model
14:31:28 <dcharbon2> AxelPolleres: this was the way forward decided for issue-20
14:31:54 <dcharbon2> ... a way that will allow us to allow triple stores that have explicit notion of graphs as well as just triple stores
14:32:01 <dcharbon2> ... any questions on that, let me know
14:32:12 <dcharbon2> AxelPolleres: separators between queries, next
14:32:18 <dcharbon2> ... this was in update operations
14:32:27 <pgearon> +q
14:32:31 <dcharbon2> ... semicolon is the separator between series of update operations
14:33:08 <dcharbon2> AxelPolleres: next on whether anything more than success or failure should be returned, agreed that there will be just success or failure on update
14:33:11 <chimezie> Zakim, unmute me
14:33:11 <Zakim> chimezie should no longer be muted
14:33:42 <dcharbon2> AxelPolleres: issue-26, we don't provide any transactional mechanism except to say that update operations should be processed atomicall
14:34:14 <dcharbon2> pgearon: you said that semicolons would be separators between update operations, end of update would be semicolon or end of file
14:34:18 <SteveH> q+
14:34:26 <dcharbon2> pgearon: I thought that there would only be end of file at the end
14:34:46 <dcharbon2> AxelPolleres: you could just have empty or separator, maybe someone else has an opinion?
14:34:49 <AxelPolleres> ack SteveH
14:34:59 <dcharbon2> SteveH: my recollection was same as AxelPolleres 
14:35:09 <dcharbon2> ... allow compatibility with command line clients
14:35:09 <AndyS> Agree -- ";" is optional at end
14:35:14 <dcharbon2> pgearon: no problem, then
14:35:35 <AxelPolleres> q?
14:35:41 <dcharbon2> AxelPolleres: issue-18 about concurrent - don't make any recommendations on how to handle concurrent
14:35:44 <AxelPolleres> ack pgearon
14:35:53 <dcharbon2> AxelPolleres: day 2 resolutions
14:35:55 <AxelPolleres> http://www.w3.org/2009/sparql/meeting/2010-03-26
14:36:37 <dcharbon2> AxelPolleres: first was for how treat errors in aggregates - go with proposal from AndyS
14:36:42 <dcharbon2> ... return tuple multisets
14:36:48 <dcharbon2> ... and number of errors
14:36:56 <dcharbon2> ... resolved also issue-53
14:37:35 <dcharbon2> AxelPolleres: then went through list of proposed aggregates in resolutions 3,4,5 and decide on groupconcat
14:37:59 <dcharbon2> ... distinguished parameters for aggregates and functional parameters separated from regular parameters by semicolons
14:38:03 <SteveH> q+
14:38:13 <SteveH> q-
14:38:14 <dcharbon2> s/semicolons/semicolon
14:38:15 <Zakim> +Sandro.a
14:38:19 <Zakim> -Sandro
14:38:34 <sandro> zakim, Sandro.a is Sandro
14:38:34 <Zakim> +Sandro; got it
14:38:49 <Souri> q+ ask about default separator in GROUP_CONCAT
14:38:56 <dcharbon2> AxelPolleres: allowing variables or expressions in group by, decided to go with what is currently in the grammar
14:39:06 <dcharbon2> ... in group by you could have actually any expression
14:39:11 <Souri> q+ ask about default separator
14:39:16 <dcharbon2> ... expression could be renamed to variable in a group by expression
14:39:25 <dcharbon2> ... could be reused but doesn't need to be projected
14:39:45 <dcharbon2> Souri: for group_concat, space was default separator?
14:39:53 <dcharbon2> AxelPolleres: there was some discussion on that
14:40:12 <dcharbon2> ... in the minutes, where the resolution is discussed, we agreed to a default, current default is whitespace
14:40:26 <dcharbon2> Souri: no resolution on that
14:40:35 <dcharbon2> AxelPolleres: no, but there was aggreement
14:40:56 <dcharbon2> AxelPolleres: discussion about negation
14:41:42 <dcharbon2> ... might be a bit confusing... we agreed that we go with the not exists syntax, but eventually concluded that we will have minus as an operator and exists and not exists in filters
14:41:54 <dcharbon2> AxelPolleres: any questions on that?
14:41:56 <Souri> !EXISTS instead of NOT EXISTS
14:42:02 <AndyS> This is a change to the NOT EXISTS design
14:42:02 <dcharbon2> ... closed several issues on entailment
14:43:01 <dcharbon2> zakim, unmute me
14:43:01 <Zakim> dcharbon2 should no longer be muted
14:43:16 <dcharbon2> AxelPolleres: issue-42 was about inconsistencies in entailment
14:43:44 <AxelPolleres> q?
14:43:52 <dcharbon2> found a way to define it in such a way that we can also support impls that can't do the check, but allow those that can to raise an error
14:43:57 <SteveH> Zakim, who's speaking?
14:44:07 <Zakim> SteveH, listening for 10 seconds I heard sound from the following: AxelPolleres (69%), Sandro (56%), OlivierCorby (4%), Ivan (5%)
14:44:20 <dcharbon2> AxelPolleres: resolution 12, allow entailment to weak finiteness condition
14:44:38 <SteveH> q+
14:44:40 <dcharbon2> make room for RIF-core where such guarantees cannot always be provided
14:45:12 <dcharbon2> AxelPolleres: resolution to allow for graph forms that don't have URIs because they don't have an official recommendation
14:45:25 <dcharbon2> SteveH: can't hear, lot of background noise
14:45:38 <kasei> I heard "service description", but couldn't really hear anything else.
14:45:59 <dcharbon2> AxelPolleres: is there anything from people who couldn't hear on the last resolutions?
14:46:15 <dcharbon2> AxelPolleres: ... so far so good.
14:46:27 <dcharbon2> AxelPolleres: how and when do we go forward with next drafts
14:46:41 <AxelPolleres> topic: publication dates
14:46:58 <AndyS> q+
14:47:06 <dcharbon2> AxelPolleres: if we keep with 3 month cycle of publishing, next round is end of April
14:47:18 <dcharbon2> ... not really feasible? Maybe we can get something done 1 or 2 weeks later
14:47:26 <dcharbon2> ... should get to last call sooner or later
14:47:38 <AxelPolleres> http://www.w3.org/2009/05/sparql-phase-II-charter.html
14:47:56 <dcharbon2> AxelPolleres: look to charter, in time plan we are already over due with last call
14:48:04 <dcharbon2> ... can we get to last call with next round of publications?
14:48:08 <dcharbon2> ... where do people stand with it?
14:48:33 <dcharbon2> ...2 questions, when can resolutions of f2f be incorporated into specifications?
14:48:45 <dcharbon2> ... do we need an intermediate working draft or can we go to last call already
14:49:00 <dcharbon2> ... go to documents, start with Query, AndyS  and SteveH , what do you think?
14:49:14 <dcharbon2> SteveH: I think we should probably go to last call once the resolutions have been implemented
14:49:29 <dcharbon2> ... I've added English text to make it clear what everything means
14:49:52 <dcharbon2> AxelPolleres: it seems clear we know what needs to be done, but we have a lot of editorial work to be done from talking to you both
14:50:05 <dcharbon2> ... issues with structuring the content
14:50:19 <dcharbon2> ... how much time do you need? What would a reasonable deadline be?
14:50:45 <dcharbon2> AndyS: Are we talking about being ready to publish next round? I this for heartbeat or how long to get to last call?
14:50:58 <dcharbon2> AxelPolleres: could next round be next call? by Charter, it should be
14:51:05 <dcharbon2> .. but, if we need another round, we could do that
14:51:20 <dcharbon2> sandro: one more round should be fine if we need it
14:51:33 <dcharbon2> AxelPolleres: AndyS , you would prefer one more heartbeat?
14:51:43 <dcharbon2> AndyS: I cannot get the documents to last call quality in two weeks
14:51:57 <dcharbon2> AxelPolleres: I think we should do one more interim round then
14:52:17 <dcharbon2> AndyS: we haven't done a proper review and we need to integrate what we have into it
14:52:59 <dcharbon2> AxelPolleres: what is reasonable for next heartbeat? Have editors incorporate the resolutions and one or more editorial notes for what was decided on at face to face? reasonable within 2 or 3 weeks
14:53:24 <dcharbon2> AndyS: i might be able to sketch out the general structure. That will not give us time to review and publish by end of April
14:53:56 <dcharbon2> AxelPolleres: Is it ok if we are 1 or 2 weeks late? ... you can get this done by end of April without reviewing done?
14:53:59 <dcharbon2> AndyS: yes
14:54:11 <dcharbon2> AxelPolleres: would another week or two be sufficient?
14:54:22 <dcharbon2> AndyS: do we need to pub every doc every heartbeat?
14:54:25 <dcharbon2> sandro: no
14:54:46 <dcharbon2> .. I would rather publish them all 2 or 3 weeks late, easier for users to understand
14:55:13 <dcharbon2> AxelPolleres: if we can get all docs to a sync point to review by end of April, have 2 weeks review, publish by mid-May
14:55:18 <AndyS> I would be uncomfortable going into LC with some basic tests done to ensure we have not missed anything.
14:55:25 <AndyS> s/with/without/
14:55:27 <dcharbon2> ... which sandro says is okay, would like to go forward with that
14:55:39 <dcharbon2> pgearon: I'm not available to do anything last week of April
14:55:47 <dcharbon2> sandro: will you be done by then?
14:56:07 <dcharbon2> pgearon: I think so, I've identified a few issues that I'll send out to the mailing list to be sure I have resolutions
14:56:16 <dcharbon2> sandro: would be excellent to be at last call by semtech
14:56:28 <dcharbon2> ... lots of people paying attention, don't know if that is practical
14:56:39 <dcharbon2> AxelPolleres: semtech is end of june
14:56:48 <dcharbon2> ivan: 21st, which is a monday
14:57:14 <dcharbon2> AxelPolleres: publication mid-may is snapshot leading into semtech, keeping goal of last call by semtech in mind..
14:57:23 <dcharbon2> ... good goal, but need to see if editors can manage this
14:57:38 <dcharbon2> ... suggest to keep it in mind and see where we are
14:57:50 <dcharbon2> sandro: need to look at open issues and see if we have any hard decisions to make
14:57:54 <AndyS> q+
14:58:06 <dcharbon2> AlexPassant: have docs by end of april that we can publish mid-may 
14:58:19 <AxelPolleres> ack SteveH
14:58:20 <dcharbon2> SteveH: this is text ready by end of April, review in may?
14:58:25 <dcharbon2> AxelPolleres: yes
14:58:28 <SteveH> q-
14:58:32 <AxelPolleres> ack AndyS
14:58:41 <dcharbon2> s/AlexPassant:/AxelPolleres:
14:58:53 <dcharbon2> AndyS: by last call, doesn't that include tests?
14:59:23 <ivan> q+
14:59:30 <dcharbon2> AndyS: There's two things about test - there is a document about them as well as the tests
14:59:46 <Zakim> -??P45
14:59:50 <AxelPolleres>  BTW: we are running out of time...  I will take on mail to ask the other editors whether the overall schedule fits also the others.
14:59:55 <dcharbon2> AndyS: would feel better if we had test cases that validated that we agree on what we've decided upon 
15:00:05 <dcharbon2> otherwise, run a big risk in having to do a second last call
15:00:18 <chimezie> I agree with Andy regarding tests
15:00:24 <dcharbon2> AxelPolleres: we have an issue open to have an updated test suite, but
15:00:51 <dcharbon2> ivan: on the process side, of course there have been groups that decided to publish the test suite as part of the recommendation - not sure we are doing that
15:01:03 <dcharbon2> ... publishing this by the time that we go to candidate rec is ok
15:01:12 <dcharbon2> ... but I understand your concern on the technical part
15:01:13 <Zakim> -Sandro
15:01:33 <dcharbon2> AxelPolleres: will contact editors regarding next heartbeat round and whether they can manage to go forward
15:01:42 <dcharbon2> ... can make timeline to go to last call for semtech
15:01:53 <dcharbon2> ... test cases we will have to continue to discuss next time
15:02:08 <dcharbon2> AndyS: who here has read the mythical man month?
15:02:16 <SteveH> ...again
15:02:35 <dcharbon2> AxelPolleres: are you saying we're going too tight?
15:02:42 <dcharbon2> AndyS: there are a lot of things to do
15:02:54 <dcharbon2> AxelPolleres: will need to see where we are at next working draft
15:03:00 <dcharbon2> ... we've run over time
15:03:08 <dcharbon2> .. ask other editors to think it over
15:03:19 <dcharbon2> ... free the time to help us to make the goals...
15:03:39 <dcharbon2> ... next week, LeeF confirmed is fine with telecon next week
15:03:43 <Zakim> -Ivan
15:03:46 <AxelPolleres> adjourned
15:03:47 <Zakim> -chimezie
15:03:48 <Zakim> -Souri
15:03:48 <Zakim> -bglimm
15:03:52 <Zakim> -AndyS
15:03:53 <Zakim> -OlivierCorby
15:03:53 <Zakim> -pgearon
15:03:56 <Zakim> -kasei
15:03:57 <Zakim> -AxelPolleres
15:04:16 <AndyS> zakim, who is on the phone?
15:04:16 <Zakim> On the phone I see dcharbon2, SteveH, MattPerry
15:04:57 <AxelPolleres> summary: next haertbeat end of April for review, mid may next round published... beyond that: LC by SemTech is the ideal goal, question whether we can manage that
15:05:29 <AxelPolleres> rrsagent, make records public
# SPECIAL MARKER FOR CHATSYNC.  DO NOT EDIT THIS LINE OR BELOW.  SRCLINESUSED=00000401