Chatlog 2011-04-26

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.

<kasei> Present: bglimm, kasei, cbuilara, SteveH, AxelPolleres, MattPerry, pgearon, OlivierCorby, AndyS, chimezie, Lee_Feigenbaum
13:55:40 <RRSAgent> RRSAgent has joined #sparql
13:55:40 <RRSAgent> logging to http://www.w3.org/2011/04/26-sparql-irc
13:55:49 <SteveH_> SteveH_ has joined #sparql
13:55:53 <AxelPolleres> Zakim, this will be SPARQL
13:55:53 <Zakim> ok, AxelPolleres; I see SW_(SPARQL)10:00AM scheduled to start in 5 minutes
13:55:59 <bglimm> ok, then I'll dial in... no Easter holidays...
13:56:01 <AxelPolleres> agenda: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-dawg/2011AprJun/0108.html
13:56:08 <AxelPolleres> chair: Axel Polleres
13:57:07 <AxelPolleres> regrets: Alex 
13:57:21 <Zakim> SW_(SPARQL)10:00AM has now started
13:57:30 <Zakim> + +44.186.528.aaaa
13:57:31 <cbuilara> cbuilara has joined #sparql
13:57:39 <bglimm> Zakim, +44.186.528.aaaa is me
13:57:39 <Zakim> +bglimm; got it
13:57:40 <Zakim> +??P3
13:57:55 <Zakim> +kasei
13:57:59 <Zakim> +[IPcaller]
13:58:06 <cbuilara> zakim, IPcaller is me
13:58:07 <Zakim> +cbuilara; got it
13:58:24 <Zakim> -??P3
13:58:46 <MattPerry> MattPerry has joined #sparql
13:58:50 <Zakim> +??P3
13:58:54 <SteveH> Zakim, ??P3 is me
13:58:54 <Zakim> +SteveH; got it
13:59:09 <Zakim> +AxelPolleres
13:59:32 <Zakim> +MattPerry
14:01:04 <Zakim> +pgearon
14:01:06 <Zakim> +OlivierCorby
14:01:16 <chimezie> chimezie has joined #sparql
14:01:21 <AxelPolleres> tried to quickly paste things we shall discuss on the wiki: http://www.w3.org/2009/sparql/wiki/Agenda-2011-04-26
14:01:28 <AxelPolleres> agenda: http://www.w3.org/2009/sparql/wiki/Agenda-2011-04-26
14:02:04 <AxelPolleres> let's give it another minute...
14:02:26 <OlivierCorby> pass code is rejected when calling  number in France (04.26.46.79.03)
14:03:31 <Zakim> +??P14
14:03:37 <AndyS> zakim, ??P14 is me
14:03:37 <Zakim> +AndyS; got it
14:03:47 <chimezie> chimezie has joined #sparql
14:04:12 <kasei> who is scribing?
14:04:31 <kasei> I can
14:04:36 <kasei> scribenick: kasei
14:04:40 <Zakim> + +1.216.368.aabb
14:04:49 <AxelPolleres> scribe: Greg Williams
14:04:49 <chimezie> Zakim, +1.216.368.aabb is me
14:04:49 <Zakim> +chimezie; got it
14:04:55 <AxelPolleres> topic: admin
14:05:21 <AxelPolleres> PROPOSED: approve minutes form last time http://www.w3.org/2009/sparql/meeting/2011-04-19
14:05:44 <AxelPolleres> RESOLVED: approve minutes form last time http://www.w3.org/2009/sparql/meeting/2011-04-19
14:06:15 <AxelPolleres> topic: document status
14:06:45 <kasei> AxelPolleres: plan is to go to last call for many of the documents next week.
14:06:59 <kasei> ... query, update, service description, graph store protocol, entailment, federated query
<kasei> subtopic: query
14:07:38 <AxelPolleres> http://www.w3.org/2009/sparql/wiki/To_Last_Call
14:07:38 <AndyS> http://www.w3.org/2009/sparql/wiki/To_Last_Call#Query
14:07:40 <kasei> SteveH: done all the major things. still some tidying up to be done.
14:07:45 <kasei> ... in reasonable shape.
14:08:03 <kasei> AndyS: I've got comments form Birte to deal with and one comment that needs a reply.
14:08:13 <bglimm> q+ to ask about (NOT) EXISTS FILTER
14:08:15 <kasei> AxelPolleres: is there anything preventing LC next week? is that realistic?
14:08:39 <kasei> AndyS: realistic to make a formal decision. there may be some things outstanding.
14:08:54 <kasei> AxelPolleres: probably need some final approval from reviewers.
14:09:21 <kasei> bglimm: I had a look at the algebra section and still not happy with (NOT) EXISTS
14:09:30 <kasei> ... I can't see how that is supposed to work.
14:09:54 <kasei> AndyS: going to deal with Birte's comment.
14:10:31 <AxelPolleres> Query summary: Birte's comments and one public comment open ?
14:10:38 <Zakim> +Lee_Feigenbaum
14:10:56 <kasei> AxelPolleres: let us know if there are any other issues. otherwise will hopefully move forward next time.
14:10:58 <AxelPolleres> q?
14:11:04 <AxelPolleres> ack birte
14:11:09 <bglimm> Zakim, ack me
14:11:09 <Zakim> unmuting bglimm
14:11:11 <Zakim> bglimm, you wanted to ask about (NOT) EXISTS FILTER
14:11:11 <AxelPolleres> ack bglimm
14:11:12 <Zakim> I see no one on the speaker queue
14:11:20 <AndyS> bglimm, what is "expire"? s//exists/?
<kasei> subtopic: update
14:11:42 <pgearon> There seem to be a couple of open questions, particularly around the formal semantics
14:11:47 <AxelPolleres> http://www.w3.org/2009/sparql/wiki/To_Last_Call#Update
14:12:09 <kasei> pgearon: most of the questions are around the formal semantics.
14:12:17 <kasei> ... all outstanding editorial tasks have been done.
14:12:29 <kasei> ... a couple of questions have come up lately that haven't been addressed.
14:12:43 <kasei> AxelPolleres: just sent a mail trying to address greg's comments.
14:12:51 <kasei> ... still a list of open things.
14:13:13 <kasei> ... open issue: semantics of USING concerning blank nodes.
14:13:26 <kasei> ... up to Paul and myself to make a proposal.
14:13:29 <kasei> ... this is the most critical.
14:13:44 <kasei> ... other things are mostly editorial.
14:13:50 <AndyS> And the descriptive text of USING ("identicial" is not acceptable)
14:13:53 <kasei> ... no "glue" between syntax and semantics yet.
14:14:15 <kasei> ... we don't have semantics of multi-operation requests.
14:14:34 <kasei> ... hope to address this by next week, but not realistic to make a decision yet.
14:14:42 <LeeF> q+ to note publication moratorium
14:15:07 <LeeF> We need to have our publication requests ready by May 6, or else we slip until late May - http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/chairs/2011JanMar/0001.html
14:15:10 <LeeF> ack me
14:15:10 <Zakim> LeeF, you wanted to note publication moratorium
14:15:36 <kasei> kasei: mostly happy with the response to my comments and how they are being handled.
14:15:38 <LeeF> It's a W3C publication moratorium surrounding the W3C AC Meeting
14:15:44 <AndyS> q+
14:16:09 <kasei> AxelPolleres: will try to have things ready by Friday, and hope Andy and Greg can have another look.
14:16:24 <LeeF> I think fully ready :-(
14:16:27 <kasei> AndyS: we've got to get through the pubrules. Does this moratorium mean it has to be ready by then? Or just asked for publication by then?
14:16:28 <LeeF> But sandro would know best
14:16:42 <LeeF> I'll see if I cna ask someone else while we continue the call
14:16:57 <kasei> AndyS: might be able to turn this into a virtue. there's still the issue with the RDF WG about changes in turtle.
14:17:06 <kasei> ... if we want to keep turtle and sparql aligned, then more time would be good.
14:17:17 <AndyS> ack me
14:17:20 <kasei> ... have asked that they address the issue, but haven't seen it on an agenda yet.
14:17:22 <LeeF> I will bring that up at CG call ASAP as well (again)
14:17:36 <kasei> AxelPolleres: are there any other issues from the RDF WG that will affect our work?
14:17:49 <LeeF> AndyS, if there's a statement of intent, do we have any other changes we'd need to make?
14:17:51 <kasei> AndyS: worst outcome would be a long discussion for each difference.
14:18:16 <kasei> AxelPolleres: should try to get as ready as we can by next week.
14:18:26 <kasei> ... will clarify with sandro what is needed by the 6th.
14:18:46 <AxelPolleres> ACTION: axel to check with sandro about what's needed for publication by May 6th
14:18:46 <trackbot> Created ACTION-443 - Check with sandro about what's needed for publication by May 6th [on Axel Polleres - due 2011-05-03].
14:19:04 <kasei> AxelPolleres: will ask editors to check pubrules by next time.
14:19:44 <kasei> ... if you think it's realistic ot be ready by next week, is it possible to have text that can be reviewed by the end of this week?
14:19:50 <LeeF> wedding?
14:19:57 <kasei> AndyS: no. 4-day weekend in UK this week.
14:21:10 <kasei> AxelPolleres: I can propose text for open update issues, but need help for checkign pubrules, etc.
14:21:17 <kasei> pgearon: I can commit to helping with that.
14:21:34 <AxelPolleres> paul and axel to chat later on skype
<kasei> subtopic: service description
14:22:11 <bglimm> I wrote an email on that
14:22:55 <AxelPolleres> q?
14:23:41 <kasei> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-dawg/2011AprJun/0102.html
14:23:57 <kasei> bglimm: I suggested one way of handling the entailment issue
14:24:11 <kasei> q+
14:24:39 <kasei> bglimm: at the moment, you can specify a default regime and a regime per named graph.
14:24:54 <kasei> ... suggested that domain of the entailment regime property should be Graph, not NamedGraph.
14:25:17 <kasei> ... also, right now Profiles are attached to graphs.
14:25:18 <AxelPolleres> a) renaming graph property, b) profiles assigned to service not to graphs
14:27:26 <AxelPolleres> as for b) greg's sees a problem, possibly every profile attached to any regime.
14:27:51 <kasei> AxelPolleres: didn't we already agree that entailment regimes are assigned to graphs?
14:28:18 <kasei> bglimm: yes, but if you support owl direct semantics and rdf-based semantics, saying "OWL RL" isn't enough, because RL can be used in either Direct or RDF-based semantics.
14:28:29 <kasei> ... does RL apply to both semantics if you calim RL is a supported profile?
14:28:40 <kasei> ... at the moment, there's no way of distinguishing.
14:28:57 <kasei> ... the semantics and the profile belong together.
14:29:36 <kasei> ... it's a bit weird to assign the profile to graphs. a graph doesn't "have a profile".
14:30:02 <kasei> AxelPolleres: is there any action here? does anybody else have a strong opinion?
14:30:13 <kasei> bglimm: taking it to email is probably best.
14:30:15 <chimezie> it might help (me) if we had an example, perhaps
14:30:24 <AxelPolleres> Birte and Greg to discuss a path forward
14:30:36 <bglimm> I added an example (of an SD) to my email
14:30:55 <AxelPolleres> ACTION: Birte to report on outcome of entailment and SD discussion on email
14:30:55 <trackbot> Created ACTION-444 - Report on outcome of entailment and SD discussion on email [on Birte Glimm - due 2011-05-03].
14:30:56 <chimezie> ok, thanks (I missed that)
<kasei> subtopic: graph store protocol
14:31:31 <kasei> chimezie: no substantive outstanding issues.
14:31:40 <kasei> ... just sent out a draft response to KjetilK.
14:31:53 <kasei> ... nothing else other than editorial thigns like pubrules checks
14:32:02 <kasei> ... ready for LC by next week.
14:32:23 <AxelPolleres> ACTION: chime to check pubrules on graph protocol doc
14:32:23 <trackbot> Created ACTION-445 - Check pubrules on graph protocol doc [on Chimezie Ogbuji - due 2011-05-03].
14:32:45 <AxelPolleres> ACTION: greg to check pubrules for SD
14:32:45 <trackbot> Created ACTION-446 - Check pubrules for SD [on Gregory Williams - due 2011-05-03].
14:33:06 <AxelPolleres> ACTION: paul to do pubrules check for Updates
14:33:06 <trackbot> Created ACTION-447 - Do pubrules check for Updates [on Paul Gearon - due 2011-05-03].
14:33:37 <AxelPolleres> ACTION: steve to check pubrules on query
14:33:37 <trackbot> Created ACTION-448 - Check pubrules on query [on Steve Harris - due 2011-05-03].
<kasei> subtopic: entailment
14:33:46 <bglimm> wiki page for that: http://www.w3.org/2009/sparql/wiki/Pub-Process
14:34:01 <kasei> bglimm: still waiting for replies. mainly editorial issues.
14:34:24 <kasei> ... could take silence as agreement.
14:34:48 <kasei> AxelPolleres: I suggest you try one more time. Take no response by the end of the week as agreement.
14:35:04 <AxelPolleres> ACTION: Birte to ping jeff one more time to ask for confirmaiton of rewordings, otherwise takes silence as agreement
14:35:05 <trackbot> Created ACTION-449 - Ping jeff one more time to ask for confirmaiton of rewordings, otherwise takes silence as agreement [on Birte Glimm - due 2011-05-03].
14:35:11 <kasei> AxelPolleres: anything else open?
14:35:15 <kasei> bglimm: no, that's the last thing.
14:35:30 <kasei> AxelPolleres: one small thing from sandro about the RIF in RDF document.
14:35:45 <kasei> ... I assume it can wait until after LC. Just need that published before rec.
14:35:52 <kasei> ... not a roadblock to LC.
14:36:15 <kasei> bglimm: issue on property paths and entailment.
14:36:45 <kasei> AxelPolleres: what's written in the entailment doc is that entailment works at the BGP level (only extension point we have)
14:36:58 <kasei> ... property paths are not affected by entailment regime.
14:37:11 <kasei> ... property paths are first simplified, then matched.
14:37:22 <kasei> ... arbitrary/zero length paths are different.
14:37:42 <kasei> ... some cases where you would expect entailment to work on arbitrary paths.
14:38:11 <kasei> ... worried that we've locked ourselves in on any future entailment work working at this level.
14:38:24 <AndyS> Arbitrary length paths have cardinality=1 makes entailment future easier. (speculation)
14:38:32 <kasei> bglimm: could say that for queries that can't be simplified into BGPs, behaviour is not defined. leaves open for future versions.
14:38:54 <kasei> ... if you use entailment, only some property paths are guaranteed to work. others aren't specified.
14:39:22 <kasei> AxelPolleres: is this section informative?
14:39:31 <kasei> bglimm: yes.
14:39:59 <kasei> AxelPolleres: would feel better if that was made clearer.
14:40:17 <kasei> bglimm: I can do that today.
14:40:46 <kasei> AxelPolleres: would it make sense to add a statement that future work may address this issue?
14:41:03 <kasei> AndyS: how can you make it clearer than "informative" in the title?
14:41:11 <LeeF> <blink>
14:41:20 <kasei> LeeF++
14:41:22 <LeeF> ...or unicode snowmen
14:41:36 <kasei> AxelPolleres: want to point out the problematic cases.
14:42:05 <Zakim> -bglimm
14:43:05 <AxelPolleres> informative probably enough, but admittedle not entirely happy with it.
14:43:19 <AxelPolleres> take that back to email.
14:43:28 <Zakim> +bglimm
14:43:34 <bglimm> Sorry I dropped out
14:44:07 <kasei> bglimm: will try to make the text clearer.
14:44:28 <AxelPolleres> axel: show what's the limits would be good
<kasei> subtopic: federated query
14:44:59 <kasei> cbuilara: waiting for comments.
14:45:12 <LeeF> I'm hoping to get my comments by tonight
14:45:18 <kasei> AxelPolleres: some questions on BINDINGS section?
14:45:45 <kasei> ... not sure if I'll be able to look through it, but will check what cbuilara and LeeF discuss.
14:45:50 <kasei> ... apart form that, ready for LC?
14:46:05 <kasei> cbuilara: yes. I've applied previous comments.
14:46:25 <kasei> ... depends on comments being waited on, but think it can go.
14:46:38 <AxelPolleres> ACTION: carlos to check pubrules
14:46:38 <trackbot> Created ACTION-450 - Check pubrules [on Carlos Buil Aranda - due 2011-05-03].
14:47:02 <bglimm> Yes
14:47:12 <AxelPolleres> ACTION: birte to check pubrules on entailment
14:47:12 <trackbot> Created ACTION-451 - Check pubrules on entailment [on Birte Glimm - due 2011-05-03].
14:47:46 <kasei> AxelPolleres: that's it for the documents.
14:48:21 <kasei> ... do we have dataset-merge definition still in query?
14:48:23 <kasei> AndyS: yes.
14:48:42 <kasei> AxelPolleres: where do we go with that? I put in an alternative version in the update document.
14:48:48 <kasei> ... not sure if that addresses Peter's comment.
14:49:08 <kasei> AndyS: I did some editing, new wording.
14:49:28 <kasei> ... nervous about describing a dataset as a bunch of slots.
14:50:16 <kasei> AxelPolleres: is the RDF WG going to take that up?
14:50:40 <kasei> AndyS: don't know. It's there because if there's going to be a distinguished version of dataset-merge, makes sense to have it next to the definition for dataset.
14:51:03 <kasei> AndyS: don't have a picture of what the possible outcomes are.
14:51:46 <kasei> AxelPolleres: should we leave it in optionally? at risk?
14:52:05 <kasei> AndyS: just leave it in.
14:52:27 <kasei> ... does update need a merge?
14:52:45 <kasei> AxelPolleres: not really sure. worried if we describe the LOAD operation in terms of dataset UNION, have to say something extra about blank nodes.
14:52:53 <kasei> ... if I use dataset merge, then I don't.
14:53:08 <kasei> AndyS: LOAD is only on a single graph. so renaming can happen when the graph is read. it's coming from syntax.
14:53:50 <kasei> AxelPolleres: if we don't need union, would also work for me.
14:54:34 <kasei> AndyS: the only problem is if the syntax introduces bnodes with clashing labels.
14:54:42 <kasei> ... somewhere it should say "don't".
14:55:10 <kasei> AxelPolleres: probably don't need merge in update.
14:55:41 <kasei> AxelPolleres: don't know how to keep the blank nodes adopting the definitions from query.
14:55:47 <kasei> ... so came up with the skolemization text.
14:56:32 <kasei> AxelPolleres: we'll get to BINDING tests next week.
14:56:52 <kasei> cbuilara: did tests for BINDINGS only, not yet SERVICE.
14:57:10 <kasei> AxelPolleres: I had an open action for federated tests. If you could suggest something, that would be great.
14:58:05 <AxelPolleres> ACTION: Carlos to think about Federated query testing (essentially helping on ACTION-274)
14:58:05 <trackbot> Created ACTION-452 - Think about Federated query testing (essentially helping on ACTION-274) [on Carlos Buil Aranda - due 2011-05-03].
# SPECIAL MARKER FOR CHATSYNC.  DO NOT EDIT THIS LINE OR BELOW.  SRCLINESUSED=00000293