Warning:
This wiki has been archived and is now read-only.
Chatlog 2010-08-03
From SPARQL Working Group
See original RRSAgent log and preview nicely formatted version.
Please justify/explain all edits to this page, in your "edit summary" text.
13:55:33 <RRSAgent> RRSAgent has joined #sparql 13:55:33 <RRSAgent> logging to http://www.w3.org/2010/08/03-sparql-irc 13:55:39 <Zakim> Zakim has joined #sparql 13:56:15 <LeeF> trackbot, start meeting 13:56:17 <trackbot> RRSAgent, make logs world 13:56:19 <trackbot> Zakim, this will be 77277 13:56:19 <Zakim> ok, trackbot; I see SW_(SPARQL)10:00AM scheduled to start in 4 minutes 13:56:20 <trackbot> Meeting: SPARQL Working Group Teleconference 13:56:20 <trackbot> Date: 03 August 2010 13:56:24 <LeeF> zakim, this will be SPARQL 13:56:24 <Zakim> ok, LeeF; I see SW_(SPARQL)10:00AM scheduled to start in 4 minutes 13:56:38 <LeeF> Chair: AxelPolleres 13:57:15 <MattPerry> MattPerry has joined #sparql 13:57:45 <AxelPolleres> agenda: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-dawg/2010JulSep/0168.html 13:58:32 <AxelPolleres> lee, ok for you to scribe? 13:58:36 <Zakim> SW_(SPARQL)10:00AM has now started 13:58:43 <Zakim> +[IPcaller] 13:58:45 <bglimm> bglimm has joined #sparql 13:58:51 <AndyS> zakim, [IPcaller] is me 13:58:51 <Zakim> +AndyS; got it 13:58:58 <bglimm> Zakim, passcode? 13:58:58 <Zakim> the conference code is 77277 (tel:+1.617.761.6200 tel:+33.4.26.46.79.03 tel:+44.203.318.0479), bglimm 13:59:17 <Zakim> +AxelPolleres 13:59:26 <Zakim> +kasei 13:59:30 <AxelPolleres> Zakim, who is on the phone? 13:59:30 <Zakim> On the phone I see AndyS, AxelPolleres, kasei 13:59:35 <Zakim> +Lee_Feigenbaum 13:59:37 <Zakim> +bglimm 13:59:45 <bglimm> Zakim, mute me 13:59:45 <Zakim> bglimm should now be muted 13:59:45 <kasei> Zakim, mute me 13:59:46 <Zakim> kasei should now be muted 13:59:51 <LeeF> AxelPolleres, ok 13:59:56 <LeeF> Scribenick: LeeF 14:00:04 <Zakim> +MattPerry 14:01:07 <AxelPolleres> regrets: sandro, chime 14:01:13 <LeeF> Agenda: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-dawg/2010JulSep/0168.html 14:01:51 <LeeF> AxelPolleres: Plan is to continue from last week's meeting 14:01:56 <LeeF> topic: Admin 14:02:04 <AxelPolleres> PROPOSED: Approve minutes at http://www.w3.org/2009/sparql/meeting/2010-07-27 14:02:34 <AxelPolleres> RESOLVED: Approve minutes at http://www.w3.org/2009/sparql/meeting/2010-07-27 14:02:56 <LeeF> topic: Update Formal Model Teleconference 14:03:23 <Zakim> +pgearon 14:03:35 <AxelPolleres> Lee: reporting on update conf call 14:04:21 <AxelPolleres> ... we sketched out some examples on update on graphstore. 14:04:28 <AxelPolleres> ... up to editors now to implement 14:04:42 <LeeF> LeeF: update call - consensus on definition of graph store state, operations as functions from graph store state to graph store state 14:04:48 <LeeF> topic: Admin (Revisited) 14:04:54 <kasei> regrets for next week 14:04:54 <LeeF> AxelPolleres: next call is one week from today, August 10 14:05:10 <LeeF> ... Olivier or Ivan next in line to scribe, followed by Axel 14:05:19 <AxelPolleres> Axel can scribe, if noone else will 14:05:32 <LeeF> topic: Comments 14:05:32 <AxelPolleres> http://www.w3.org/2009/sparql/wiki/Comments#WD_comments 14:05:51 <LeeF> AxelPolleres: two unaddressed comments 14:06:06 <LeeF> ... one is Jos's RIF comment - Chime is probably the owner of that comment 14:06:22 <AxelPolleres> chime implicit owneer on JB-1 14:06:39 <LeeF> ... will talk about that when Sandro and Chime are around 14:06:42 <AxelPolleres> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-dawg-comments/2010Aug/0003.html 14:06:45 <LeeF> ... other comment is Reto's recent comment 14:06:51 <LeeF> q+ 14:07:02 <LeeF> AxelPolleres: this comment touches on several drafts 14:07:12 <LeeF> AxelPolleres: I will draft a response 14:07:13 <LeeF> q- 14:07:16 <AxelPolleres> RK-1 14:07:17 <AxelPolleres> ACTION: axel to draft response to RK-1 14:07:17 <trackbot> Created ACTION-287 - Draft response to RK-1 [on Axel Polleres - due 2010-08-10]. 14:08:26 <LeeF> topic: test cases vocabulary 14:08:30 <AxelPolleres> topic: test case vocabulary 14:08:54 <AxelPolleres> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-dawg/2010JulSep/0117.html 14:09:02 <AxelPolleres> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-dawg/2010JulSep/0121.html 14:09:27 <AndyS> First link is wrong? 14:10:31 <LeeF> AxelPolleres: where do we want to add the entailment regime? 14:10:39 <LeeF> ... then we need a URI for the graph 14:10:59 <AxelPolleres> sd:entailmentRegime 14:11:05 <LeeF> ... if we use the SD entailment regime property then what is the subject of that? 14:11:24 <LeeF> ... if the graph itself then in one manifest file we would fix the entailment regime for a graph for all tests 14:11:30 <AndyS> zakim, who is on the phone? 14:11:30 <Zakim> On the phone I see AndyS, AxelPolleres, kasei (muted), Lee_Feigenbaum, bglimm (muted), MattPerry, pgearon 14:12:08 <LeeF> ... one proposal is to nest qt:data predicates 14:12:15 <AxelPolleres> q? 14:12:25 <AndyS> q+ 14:12:49 <Zakim> +Souri 14:12:58 <Souri> Souri has joined #sparql 14:13:13 <AndyS> q- 14:13:47 <AxelPolleres> qt:data [ qt:data <rdf01.ttl> ; 14:13:47 <AxelPolleres> sd:entailmentRegime ent:RDF ] ] ; 14:13:51 <LeeF> q+ to ask why can't entailment tests have additional constructs 14:13:56 <AxelPolleres> qt:data [ owl:sameAs <rdf01.ttl> ; 14:13:57 <AxelPolleres> sd:entailmentRegime ent:RDF ] ] ; 14:14:27 <AxelPolleres> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-dawg/2010JulSep/0121.html 14:14:30 <bglimm> But mine didn't allow for using different ent. regimes for different graphs 14:14:33 <LeeF> qt:data <foo.ttl> ; qt:entailmentSetup [ qt:graph <foo.ttl> ; qt:regime ent:RDFS ] 14:14:47 <AndyS> what about: [ qt:data <g> ; sd:entailmentRegime (<g> ent:RDF) ] 14:15:37 <LeeF> AndyS: what Lee and I are trying to get to is to talk about the data and then annotate it with the entailment info that should also apply 14:17:03 <LeeF> AndyS: We could go with Birte's setup where you have one entailment regime tested per query 14:17:44 <AndyS> qt:worksOn [ qt:data <g> ; sd:entailmentRegime ent:RDFS ] 14:18:50 <SteveH> SteveH has joined #sparql 14:19:08 <Souri> +1 to simple proposal => one entailment regime for the query 14:19:28 <bglimm> that would work for me 14:19:30 <bglimm> yes 14:19:35 <AndyS> qt:graphWithEnt [ qt:withNameAs <g1> ; qt:data <g> ; sd:entailmentRegime ent:RDFS ] 14:19:42 <AndyS> ... but simple is good. 14:20:16 <LeeF> AxelPolleres: go with simple for now 14:20:32 <Zakim> +Garlik 14:20:40 <SteveH> Zakim, Garlik is temporarily me 14:20:40 <Zakim> +SteveH; got it 14:20:42 <AxelPolleres> let's go with the simple proposal from Birte for now, for more complex ones I will try to capture Lee's proposal for more complex ones. 14:21:31 <LeeF> AxelPolleres: we need the ability to refer to different graphs with the same name to describe the state of the graph store before and after an update 14:22:26 <LeeF> AndyS: who's implemented these test cases? 14:22:30 <LeeF> (silence) 14:22:37 <LeeF> AndyS: getting to update soon, entailment later on 14:23:17 <bglimm> I hope to soon start with entailment tests 14:24:16 <chimezie> chimezie has joined #sparql 14:24:16 <AxelPolleres> ACTION: Axel to reintroduce extra vocabulary for graphstore to solve issue on named graphs in update test cases 14:24:16 <trackbot> Created ACTION-288 - Reintroduce extra vocabulary for graphstore to solve issue on named graphs in update test cases [on Axel Polleres - due 2010-08-10]. 14:24:38 <chimezie> Zakim, what is the passcode? 14:24:38 <Zakim> the conference code is 77277 (tel:+1.617.761.6200 tel:+33.4.26.46.79.03 tel:+44.203.318.0479), chimezie 14:24:40 <LeeF> topic: issues 14:24:50 <LeeF> AxelPolleres: last time we ended with issue 23 14:24:53 <LeeF> ISSUE-30? 14:24:53 <trackbot> ISSUE-30 -- What RESTful update operations should be defined? -- open 14:24:53 <trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2009/sparql/track/issues/30 14:25:18 <Zakim> + +1.216.445.aaaa 14:25:30 <AxelPolleres> PROPOSED: close ISSUE-30 with the agreement that we will restrict ourselves to the operations mentioned in the current draft http://www.w3.org/2009/sparql/docs/http-rdf-update/#graph-management 14:25:42 <chimezie> Zakim, +1.216.445.aaaa is me 14:25:42 <Zakim> +chimezie; got it 14:26:11 <LeeF> seconded 14:26:12 <AxelPolleres> +1 14:26:45 <LeeF> AndyS: what about PATCH? 14:26:48 <LeeF> AxelPolleres: it's mentioned informatively 14:26:50 <LeeF> AndyS: OK 14:27:03 <AxelPolleres> RESOLVED: close ISSUE-30 with the agreement that we will restrict ourselves to the operations mentioned in the current draft http://www.w3.org/2009/sparql/docs/http-rdf-update/#graph-management 14:27:08 <AxelPolleres> close ISSUE-30 14:27:08 <trackbot> ISSUE-30 What RESTful update operations should be defined? closed 14:27:36 <AxelPolleres> ISSUE-33 14:27:36 <AxelPolleres> Can we use the correct meaning of the full slate of HTTP errors when specifying the update protocol via WSDL? 14:27:42 <LeeF> ISSUE-33? 14:27:42 <trackbot> ISSUE-33 -- Can we use the correct meaning of the full slate of HTTP errors when specifying the update protocol via WSDL? -- open 14:27:42 <trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2009/sparql/track/issues/33 14:28:56 <AxelPolleres> q? 14:29:03 <LeeF> q- 14:29:12 <chimezie> Zakim, mute me 14:29:12 <Zakim> chimezie should now be muted 14:29:17 <LeeF> ISSUE-35? 14:29:17 <trackbot> ISSUE-35 -- Can aggregate functions take DISTINCT as an argument a la SELECT COUNT(DISTINCT ?X)? -- open 14:29:17 <trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2009/sparql/track/issues/35 14:29:29 <AndyS> Yes. Done. 14:29:38 <chimezie> Zakim, who is on the phone? 14:29:38 <Zakim> On the phone I see AndyS, AxelPolleres, kasei (muted), Lee_Feigenbaum, bglimm (muted), MattPerry, pgearon, Souri, SteveH, chimezie (muted) 14:29:49 <AxelPolleres> q? 14:30:28 <AxelPolleres> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-dawg/2010JulSep/0134.html 14:30:36 <SteveH> q+ 14:30:41 <AxelPolleres> SELECT COUNT(DISTINCT ?X) {…} 14:30:42 <AxelPolleres> --> 14:30:42 <AxelPolleres> SELECT COUNT(?X) 14:30:42 <AxelPolleres> { SELECT DISTINCT ?X {…} } 14:30:48 <Zakim> -SteveH 14:30:52 <SteveH> sorry, wrong button! 14:31:10 <kasei> what about COUNT(DISTINCT ?x) COUNT(?x)? very nasty subquery...? 14:31:20 <Zakim> +Garlik 14:31:28 <SteveH> Zakim, Garlik is temporarily me 14:31:28 <Zakim> +SteveH; got it 14:31:43 <Zakim> -SteveH 14:32:00 <Zakim> +Garlik 14:32:03 <SteveH> Zakim, Garlik is temporarily me 14:32:03 <Zakim> +SteveH; got it 14:32:06 <AxelPolleres> andy: it is already done and it's in the grammar 14:34:28 <SteveH> +1 to having it in there 14:35:15 <AxelPolleres> PROPOSED: Close ISSUE-35 with the understnading that all Aggregates can have DISTINCT 14:35:31 <LeeF> seconded 14:35:38 <SteveH> +1 14:35:50 <Souri> +1 14:35:53 <AxelPolleres> RESOLVED: Close ISSUE-35 with the understnading that all Aggregates can have DISTINCT 14:35:58 <AxelPolleres> close ISSUE-35 14:35:58 <trackbot> ISSUE-35 Can aggregate functions take DISTINCT as an argument a la SELECT COUNT(DISTINCT ?X)? closed 14:36:11 <LeeF> ISSUE-37? 14:36:12 <trackbot> ISSUE-37 -- How does basic federated query interact with SPARQL/Update? -- open 14:36:12 <trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2009/sparql/track/issues/37 14:36:23 <AxelPolleres> ISSUE-37 14:36:23 <AxelPolleres> How does basic federated query interact with SPARQL/Update? 14:36:38 <pgearon> that's an issue that mostly bothers SteveH. IIRC 14:36:53 <SteveH> sounds right 14:37:10 <AndyS> Last week: http://www.w3.org/2009/sparql/track/issues/18 14:37:49 <LeeF> AxelPolleres: do we need to say anything about the interaction of federated query with SPARQL Update? 14:38:15 <LeeF> ... SERVICE keyword in the WHERE clause does not seem to be a problem in terms of defining it 14:38:49 <pgearon> +q 14:38:50 <LeeF> ... are there any other issues here? 14:38:57 <AxelPolleres> q? 14:39:01 <SteveH> If that's the case it's al least worth a note in the update doc saying that it can have feedback effects 14:39:10 <AxelPolleres> ack steveH 14:39:34 <LeeF> ack pgearon 14:39:45 <LeeF> pgearon: I don't think it's a big issue but worth mentioning in the udpate document 14:40:42 <AxelPolleres> PROPOSED: close ISSUE-37 by adding a note to Update mentioning possible feedback effects 14:41:01 <SteveH> +1 14:41:01 <AndyS> If update requests are truly atomic, it's a bit of a non-effect (atomic being a somewhat of an ideal) 14:41:11 <pgearon> +1 14:41:19 <AndyS> +1 14:41:21 <SteveH> AndyS, not really, as the SERVICE request will happen inside a different context 14:41:34 <SteveH> but it's certainly possible to live with 14:41:42 <AxelPolleres> RESOLVED: close ISSUE-37 by adding a note to Update mentioning possible feedback effects 14:41:48 <AxelPolleres> close ISSUE-37 14:41:48 <trackbot> ISSUE-37 How does basic federated query interact with SPARQL/Update? closed 14:42:14 <AxelPolleres> ACTION: paul to add a note on possible feedback effects of federated queries in update 14:42:14 <trackbot> Created ACTION-289 - Add a note on possible feedback effects of federated queries in update [on Paul Gearon - due 2010-08-10]. 14:42:27 <LeeF> ISSUE-39? 14:42:27 <trackbot> ISSUE-39 -- Can variable used as aliases for expressions be themselves used in other expressions? -- open 14:42:27 <trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2009/sparql/track/issues/39 14:42:42 <LeeF> already resolved as far as I know - can be used further to the right 14:42:53 <AndyS> agree with LeeF 14:42:59 <AxelPolleres> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-dawg/2010JanMar/0274.html 14:43:01 <bglimm> yes, I also remember that 14:43:16 <AxelPolleres> PROPOSED: Close ISSUE-39 with the insight that the current draft handles that case in a clearly defined manner. 14:43:30 <LeeF> seconded 14:43:55 <AxelPolleres> RESOLVED: Close ISSUE-39 with the insight that the current draft handles that case in a clearly defined manner. 14:44:02 <AxelPolleres> close ISSUE-39 14:44:02 <trackbot> ISSUE-39 Can variable used as aliases for expressions be themselves used in other expressions? closed 14:44:09 <LeeF> ISSUE-43? 14:44:09 <trackbot> ISSUE-43 -- should entailment-regimes be declared over the whole dataset or individual graphs? -- open 14:44:09 <trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2009/sparql/track/issues/43 14:44:27 <AxelPolleres> ISSUE-43 should entailment-regimes be declared over the whole dataset or individual graphs? 14:44:47 <LeeF> AxelPolleres: Not sure if we can close this - we haven't really fleshed something out for use cases for this 14:44:58 <AndyS> q+ 14:45:02 <LeeF> ack AndyS 14:45:16 <LeeF> AndyS: the deployed systems I have can do queries over a mixture of entailments with different graphs 14:46:18 <pgearon> +1 14:46:26 <kasei> yes 14:46:27 <chimezie> +1 14:46:28 <bglimm> +1 14:46:40 <kasei> although the SD currently has a shortcut way of saying that one entailment applies to all the graphs 14:46:49 <AxelPolleres> strawpoll: close issue-43 by allowing differnt entailment regimes per graph 14:46:55 <AndyS> +1 14:47:40 <AxelPolleres> PROPOSED: close ISSUE-43 by allowing different entailment regimes per graph 14:48:01 <bglimm> yes 14:48:22 <AxelPolleres> PROPOSED: close ISSUE-43 by allowing different entailment regimes over different graphs 14:48:24 <kasei> q+ to ask if keeping sd:defaultEntailmentRegime is desirable (higher cost on SD consumers if we keep it I think) 14:48:29 <kasei> Zakim, unmute me 14:48:29 <Zakim> kasei should no longer be muted 14:48:47 <AndyS> +1 to kasei 14:48:51 <bglimm> Yes, I would still want it 14:49:15 <SteveH> even higher cost if your store has 1M graphs 14:49:36 <bglimm> Hm, at least it would spare me to write everywhere that we use OWL Direct Semantics, which is the only option for our system 14:50:38 <kasei> Zakim, mute me 14:50:38 <Zakim> kasei should now be muted 14:50:56 <AxelPolleres> RESOLVED: close ISSUE-43 by allowing different entailment regimes over different graphs 14:51:03 <AxelPolleres> close ISSUE-43 14:51:03 <trackbot> ISSUE-43 should entailment-regimes be declared over the whole dataset or individual graphs? closed 14:51:37 <AxelPolleres> axel: we seem to have agreement to keep sd:defaultEntailmentRegime 14:51:54 <AxelPolleres> ISSUE-44 Suitability of term "networked RDF knowledge" 14:51:55 <LeeF> ISSUE-44? 14:51:56 <trackbot> ISSUE-44 -- Suitability of term "networked RDF knowledge" -- open 14:51:56 <trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2009/sparql/track/issues/44 14:52:40 <AxelPolleres> PROPOSED: Close ISSUE-44 with the conclusion reached at http://www.w3.org/2009/sparql/meeting/2010-06-07#__22_Networked_RDF_Knowledge__22_ 14:53:39 <LeeF> seconded 14:53:43 <bglimm> +1 14:53:46 <SteveH> ...reading 14:54:12 <AxelPolleres> RESOLVED: Close ISSUE-44 with the conclusion reached at http://www.w3.org/2009/sparql/meeting/2010-06-07#__22_Networked_RDF_Knowledge__22_ 14:54:18 <AxelPolleres> close ISSUE-44 14:54:18 <trackbot> ISSUE-44 Suitability of term "networked RDF knowledge" closed 14:54:48 <LeeF> ISSUE-47? 14:54:48 <trackbot> ISSUE-47 -- Is MODIFY syntax required? -- open 14:54:48 <trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2009/sparql/track/issues/47 14:55:05 <AxelPolleres> ISSUE-47 Is MODIFY syntax required? 14:55:43 <AxelPolleres> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-dawg/2009OctDec/0385.html 14:56:30 <AxelPolleres> q? 14:56:34 <LeeF> Can we subjugate ISSUE-47 to ISSUE-59? 14:56:35 <pgearon> +q 14:56:37 <kasei> q- 14:57:04 <AndyS> The exact syntax has gone, the mechanism is still there. 14:58:17 <AxelPolleres> PROPOSED: close ISSUE-47 with the insight that MODIFY is no longer supported as per resolution http://www.w3.org/2009/sparql/meeting/2009-11-03#resolution_4 14:58:20 <Zakim> -MattPerry 14:58:45 <bglimm> +1 14:59:09 <AxelPolleres> RESOLVED: close ISSUE-47 with the insight that MODIFY is no longer supported as per resolution http://www.w3.org/2009/sparql/meeting/2009-11-03#resolution_4 14:59:17 <AxelPolleres> close ISSUE-47 14:59:17 <trackbot> ISSUE-47 Is MODIFY syntax required? closed 14:59:44 <Zakim> -chimezie 14:59:44 <bglimm> bye 14:59:45 <Zakim> -Souri 14:59:47 <AxelPolleres> adjourned 14:59:47 <Zakim> -bglimm 14:59:48 <Zakim> -pgearon 14:59:50 <Zakim> -SteveH 14:59:52 <Zakim> -kasei 14:59:54 <Zakim> -AndyS 14:59:59 <Zakim> -Lee_Feigenbaum 15:00:21 <kasei> AndyS, question about PP doc...? 15:00:44 <AxelPolleres> rrsagent, make records public 15:01:51 <AndyS> kasei, need to be a quick Q 15:01:55 <AxelPolleres> summary: closed many issues, will continue at ISSUE-48 next time 15:02:07 <kasei> I see "A path of length zero connects a graph node to itself," but also in Defn of ZeroLengthPath "also any IRIs explicitly given as endpoints". 15:02:18 <kasei> graph node? or IRI? (what about literals?) 15:02:21 <AxelPolleres> rrsagent, make records public # SPECIAL MARKER FOR CHATSYNC. DO NOT EDIT THIS LINE OR BELOW. SRCLINESUSED=00000293