Chatlog 2011-06-21

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.

13:54:27 <RRSAgent> RRSAgent has joined #sparql
13:54:27 <RRSAgent> logging to
13:54:29 <trackbot> RRSAgent, make logs world
13:54:29 <Zakim> Zakim has joined #sparql
13:54:31 <trackbot> Zakim, this will be 77277
13:54:31 <Zakim> ok, trackbot; I see SW_(SPARQL)10:00AM scheduled to start in 6 minutes
13:54:32 <trackbot> Meeting: SPARQL Working Group Teleconference
13:54:32 <trackbot> Date: 21 June 2011
13:55:30 <LeeF> zakim, this will be sparql
13:55:30 <Zakim> ok, LeeF; I see SW_(SPARQL)10:00AM scheduled to start in 5 minutes
13:55:55 <Zakim> SW_(SPARQL)10:00AM has now started
13:56:02 <Zakim> +LeeF
13:57:34 <Zakim> +kasei
13:59:58 <Zakim> +jess
14:00:05 <MattPerry> MattPerry has joined #sparql
14:00:05 <Zakim> +??P7
14:00:11 <cbuilara> zakim, ??P7 is me
14:00:11 <Zakim> +cbuilara; got it
14:00:25 <bglimm> Zakim, passcode?
14:00:25 <Zakim> the conference code is 77277 (tel:+1.617.761.6200 tel:+ tel:+44.203.318.0479), bglimm
14:00:34 <Zakim> +??P11
14:00:40 <AndyS> zakim, ??P11 is me
14:00:40 <Zakim> +AndyS; got it
14:01:03 <Zakim> +MattPerry
14:01:11 <chimezie> chimezie has joined #sparql
14:01:12 <Zakim> + +44.186.528.aaaa
14:01:25 <bglimm> Zakim, +44.186.528.aaaa is me
14:01:25 <Zakim> +bglimm; got it
14:01:42 <bglimm> Zakim, mute me
14:01:42 <Zakim> bglimm should now be muted
14:01:44 <LeeF> zakim, who's here?
14:01:45 <Zakim> On the phone I see LeeF, kasei, jess, cbuilara, AndyS, MattPerry, bglimm (muted)
14:01:47 <Zakim> On IRC I see chimezie, MattPerry, Zakim, RRSAgent, cbuilara, Olivier, bglimm, LeeF, AndyS, SteveH, iv_an_ru_, ericP, sandro, trackbot, kasei, NickH, alepas
14:02:41 <LeeF> zakim, what number is jess?
14:02:53 <Zakim> I don't understand your question, LeeF.
14:02:58 <alex_> alex_ has joined #sparql
14:03:04 <LeeF> zakim, jess?
14:03:04 <Zakim> I don't understand your question, LeeF.
14:03:14 <Zakim> +Sandro
14:03:14 <axelpolleres> axelpolleres has joined #sparql
14:03:20 <kasei> 41# i think
14:03:27 <kasei> h for hand
14:03:32 <Olivier> 41#
14:03:51 <Zakim> +AxelPolleres
14:03:53 <bglimm> Zakim, handsup
14:03:53 <Zakim> I don't understand 'handsup', bglimm
14:03:54 <LeeF> zakim, jess is Olivier
14:03:54 <Zakim> +Olivier; got it
14:04:09 <chimezie> chimezie has joined #sparql
14:04:10 <axelpolleres> can take over scribing...
14:04:23 <LeeF> scribenick: axelpolleres
14:04:24 <axelpolleres> scribe: axelpolleres
14:04:27 <chimezie> zakim, code?
14:04:27 <Zakim> the conference code is 77277 (tel:+1.617.761.6200 tel:+ tel:+44.203.318.0479), chimezie
14:04:27 <NickH> sorry, I can't attend today - in another meeting
14:04:30 <Zakim> + +3539149aabb
14:04:34 <LeeF> Regrets: NickH
14:04:36 <alex_> Zakim, +3539149aabb is me
14:04:36 <Zakim> +alex_; got it
14:04:49 <LeeF> zakim, mute axelpolleres 
14:04:49 <Zakim> AxelPolleres should now be muted
14:05:03 <LeeF> topic: Admin
14:05:03 <Zakim> +chimezie
14:05:13 <LeeF> PROPOSED: Approve minutes from
14:05:28 <chimezie> Zakim, mute me
14:05:28 <Zakim> chimezie should now be muted
14:05:49 <LeeF> RESOLVED: Approve minutes from
14:06:13 <sandro> regrets for next two weeks
14:06:14 <bglimm> I can't
14:06:17 <LeeF> Next regular meeting: 2011-06-28 @ 15:00 UK / 10:00 EDT
14:06:25 <axelpolleres> at risk
14:06:30 <LeeF> Next regular meeting: 2011-06-28 @ 15:00 UK / 10:00 EDT, regrets from sandro and bglimm, axelpolleres at risk
14:06:32 <Olivier> at risk
14:07:07 <axelpolleres> topic: RDF WG resolution on plain literals
14:07:09 <Zakim> +pgearon
14:07:39 <pgearon> pgearon has joined #sparql
14:07:55 <axelpolleres> s/topic/main topic today/
14:07:57 <axelpolleres> ok
14:07:58 <AndyS> s/plain/simple/ (rest of plain literals has not been decided)
14:08:02 <axelpolleres> topic: comments
14:08:17 <LeeF>
14:08:25 <chimezie> lol
14:08:33 <LeeF>
14:08:59 <axelpolleres> HK-3 is acxknowledged
14:09:27 <axelpolleres> KR-1 underway
14:09:32 <bglimm> I took ownership of AZ-1
14:09:51 <bglimm> Zakim, unmute me
14:09:51 <Zakim> bglimm should no longer be muted
14:10:05 <pgearon_> pgearon_ has joined #sparql
14:10:08 <sandro> (he)
14:10:26 <axelpolleres> ... not underway, draft response KR-1 stillempty, AZ-1 is incomplete, but underway.
14:10:51 <axelpolleres> Birte: is section reordering ok (requested by AZ-1)?
14:11:02 <axelpolleres> Lee: fully ok as editorial change
14:11:12 <axelpolleres> Birte: ok, content not affected.
14:11:28 <bglimm> Zakim, mute me
14:11:28 <Zakim> bglimm should now be muted
14:11:37 <kasei> I can, since it was based on a bug in my code :)
14:11:52 <axelpolleres> Lee: Kjetil submitted a test case. anybosdy willing to check it and add it to our test suite?
14:11:56 <kasei> can I get an ACTION for that?
14:12:15 <LeeF> ACTION: Greg to look at Kjetil's test case and incorporate it into the SPARQL WG test suite and email the group about it
14:12:15 <trackbot> Created ACTION-484 - Look at Kjetil's test case and incorporate it into the SPARQL WG test suite and email the group about it [on Gregory Williams - due 2011-06-28].
14:13:05 <axelpolleres> I didnn't further elaborate on my suggestion, but anyways I am happy if Andy sends "as is"
14:13:47 <LeeF>
14:15:00 <axelpolleres> topic:Actions
14:14:11 <axelpolleres> Axel: didn't manage to tackle the actions, sorry
14:14:26 <axelpolleres> ... (deadline was for next week)
14:15:07 <LeeF> close ACTION-482
14:15:07 <trackbot> ACTION-482 Update SERVICE test cases based on andy's feedback closed
14:15:29 <kasei> FWIW, i had intended my propsed syntax to be a conversation starting point, not necessarily the actual syntax...
14:17:44 <kasei> for example: <testX> mf:feature sparql:rand .
14:18:02 <axelpolleres> Lee: discussing annotation of test cases by features required.
14:18:39 <axelpolleres> topic: joint teleconf with RDF WG on terminology
14:18:48 <axelpolleres> Lee: will take place tomorrow
14:19:03 <LeeF> Wednesday, 22 June 2011
14:19:03 <LeeF>  10:00 US EDT (Boston), 15:00 BST (London), 16:00 CET (Amsterdam, Paris)
14:19:03 <LeeF> The call will use the Zakim bridge normally used for the RDF WG:
14:19:03 <LeeF> Dial +1-617-761-6200 or then conference code 73394#
14:19:03 <LeeF> IRC channel: #rdf-wg
14:19:14 <axelpolleres> ... the same timwe as our SPARQL call, but tmrw
14:19:34 <axelpolleres> ... get both WGs on the same page as for terminology.
14:19:58 <chimezie> will that have implications on our specs?
14:20:06 <chimezie> Zakim, unmute me
14:20:06 <Zakim> chimezie should no longer be muted
14:20:36 <axelpolleres> Lee: potentially has editorial effects on our specs, but don't expect substantive changes.
14:20:54 <axelpolleres> ... hopefully.
14:20:57 <chimezie> Zakim, mute me
14:20:57 <Zakim> chimezie should now be muted
14:21:28 <axelpolleres> topic: RDF WG resolution on plain literals
14:21:29 <LeeF>
14:21:51 <LeeF>
14:22:54 <axelpolleres> bottomline proposal: simple literals will be abolished in abstract RDF syntax and in various concrete syntaxes simple literals will be parsed as string-typed literals.
14:23:16 <LeeF> SHOULD serialize as "foo" instead of as "foo"^^xsd:string
14:23:29 <axelpolleres> ... ie implicit typing to xsd:string.
14:24:13 <AndyS> Implications : (may not be complete)
14:24:18 <axelpolleres> Lee: tried to summarize how this affects us.
14:24:45 <pgearon> +q
14:24:55 <LeeF> q- h
14:24:58 <LeeF> ack pgearon
14:25:04 <axelpolleres> q+
14:25:28 <axelpolleres> Paul: like the decision, but not clear about plain lits with language tags.
14:25:47 <axelpolleres> Lee: language tagged plain literals are not affected by that decision.
14:26:24 <kasei> q+ to talk about data matching triple patterns
14:26:25 <LeeF> ack axelpolleres
14:26:31 <axelpolleres> ... plain lits with lang tags still don't have a datatype (current state of affairs in RDF WG)
14:26:36 <axelpolleres> zakim, unmute me
14:26:36 <Zakim> AxelPolleres was not muted, axelpolleres
14:27:30 <bglimm> I actually wanted to check OWL because I think OWL has a different idea of plain literals, but didn't get round to do it
14:27:38 <LeeF> ack kasei
14:27:38 <Zakim> kasei, you wanted to talk about data matching triple patterns
14:28:13 <Zakim> -cbuilara
14:28:28 <axelpolleres> Greg: changes matching of triple patterns.
14:28:38 <AndyS> OWL+RIF will not see "foo@"^^rdf:plainLiteral, only "foo@lang"^^rdf:plainLiteral 
14:28:47 <kasei>
14:29:18 <axelpolleres> Axel: asking about RIF+OWL, but probably that's more concern of the RDF WG than ours here.
14:30:07 <LeeF> "foo" and "foo"^^xs:string will parse to the same abstract thing, and then match against that abstract thing
14:30:50 <LeeF> What if your data store is an RDF 1.0 data store that still has some things that are simple literals and others which are xs:string literals?
14:30:52 <axelpolleres> Lee: "foo" and "foo"^^xs:string in future will parse to the same
14:31:19 <AndyS> Specifically, has data already loaded (RDF 1.0)
14:31:20 <axelpolleres> ... we need tro consider bw-compatibility with RDF1.0 stores.
14:32:32 <axelpolleres> ... there is a migration problem.
14:33:06 <axelpolleres> Greg: if you only control the SPARQL processor, but not the store.
14:33:43 <axelpolleres> Lee: is this a blocking issue?
14:33:44 <Zakim> +??P29
14:33:53 <axelpolleres> Greg: no, just a hassle.
14:33:54 <cbuilara> zakim, ??P29 is me
14:33:54 <Zakim> +cbuilara; got it
14:34:22 <axelpolleres> q+ to ask whether we need to go back from LC for a change in this regard?
14:35:16 <axelpolleres> Andy: existing software can be affected, I'd like to understand what value it brings.
14:35:47 <axelpolleres> Lee: our customers don't want to bother about adding xs:string or not. 
14:35:58 <Zakim> -Sandro
14:36:17 <Zakim> +Sandro
14:36:22 <sandro> (oops)
14:36:58 <LeeF>
14:38:03 <axelpolleres> Lee: functions most probably affected, talk about simple literals, etc.
14:38:19 <axelpolleres> ... need revising.
14:38:36 <LeeF> A < B	simple literal	simple literal
14:39:03 <axelpolleres> +1 that functions probably only need revising, remember we added cases explicitly for the distinction, so unifying might just simplify things in some places?
14:39:55 <axelpolleres> Lee: thought that we might not need to change anything here (jsut by referring to the RDF concepts... but looks like we definitly need to make changes here.
14:40:10 <axelpolleres> ... which will most probably trigger another LC.
14:40:24 <axelpolleres> Andy: It's a gray area.
14:40:40 <axelpolleres> ... we'd just remove simple literals.
14:41:08 <axelpolleres> Lee: in a sense we'd just remove a conformance criterion.
14:41:48 <axelpolleres> Andy: operator table itself ??? (didn't catch that, sorry)
14:42:51 <LeeF>
14:42:52 <AndyS> operator table itself looks to be a set of natural changes, not automatic 2LC (IMHO)
14:43:14 <axelpolleres> ... we can't do too much here ATM until the final decision (?)
14:45:29 <axelpolleres> Andy: str is okayish, lang is potentially a problem
14:46:32 <axelpolleres> ... strlen as well.
14:47:30 <AndyS> s/strlen/strlang/
14:47:36 <AndyS> and strdt()
14:47:40 <axelpolleres> Lee: I see that can be made worked, but how do we deal with the migration problem processwise?
14:48:57 <axelpolleres> Andy: OWL was held up by a similar issue?
14:49:31 <axelpolleres> Sandro: We can provide the text we need in our specs, and hope the others adopt it.
14:50:07 <axelpolleres> Andy: that'd be 2nd last call, wouldn't it?
14:50:35 <axelpolleres> Sandro: still don't understand how big of a change that is.
14:52:11 <axelpolleres> charter question... "For all new features, backwards compatibility with the current version of SPARQL is of great importance. All queries, that are valid in the January 2008 version of SPARQL, should remain valid in the new version and should produce identical results, except in the case of errata. "
14:52:51 <axelpolleres> q+
14:53:04 <axelpolleres> Andy: impact on SPARQL update not clear
14:53:28 <axelpolleres> Lee: most on SPARQL query, transparent to SPARQL Update..?
14:53:46 <axelpolleres> Andy: I think I could come up with examples that make a difference.
14:54:07 <pgearon> +q
14:54:21 <LeeF> ack axelpolleres
14:54:22 <Zakim> axelpolleres, you wanted to ask whether we need to go back from LC for a change in this regard? and to 
14:54:24 <axelpolleres> Lee: yes,. but that's not because of affected SPARQL Update text, but because of affects on SPARQL query (implicitly referred to)
14:56:40 <axelpolleres> Axel: apart from the 2nd LC call issue, the cleanest way to be true to our charter would be to make case distinctions between RDF1.0 and RDF1.1.
14:57:04 <LeeF> ack pgearon
14:57:20 <axelpolleres> Lee: that's a clean way, but we have to see whether that will work fo us.
14:58:28 <axelpolleres> zakim, mute me
14:58:39 <Zakim> AxelPolleres should now be muted
14:58:44 <LeeF> I think it's a clean way, but i think it's a lot of work for us to get it right so that SPARQL 1.1 is clearly defined against RDF 1.0 and Expected RDF 1.1
14:58:58 <axelpolleres> Paul: i see where you're coming from with your example for SPARQL update, but still unsure about whether that's all for SPARQL update (?)
15:00:14 <axelpolleres> the simplest, but dirty(?) way would be to refer to RDF1.0 only and then maybe produce a note or something towards the end on how to use SPARQL with RDF1.1 
15:00:51 <axelpolleres> Paul: will write an email (on my concern)
15:01:14 <axelpolleres> Lee: ask myself what the world would loook like if we stick with RDF1.0
15:01:52 <axelpolleres> ... if we all agree with that SPARQL1.1 against RDF1.1 is obvious, maybe, we don't need to do anything.
15:02:00 <Zakim> -LeeF
15:02:00 <bglimm> bye
15:02:01 <chimezie> bye
15:02:02 <pgearon> thanks
15:02:02 <Zakim> -MattPerry
15:02:02 <MattPerry> bye
15:02:03 <axelpolleres> ... let's take it to email.
15:02:04 <Zakim> -alex_
15:02:05 <Zakim> -chimezie
15:02:06 <alex_> bye
15:02:06 <Zakim> -bglimm
15:02:07 <axelpolleres> adjourned
15:02:07 <AndyS> ADJOURNED
15:02:07 <Zakim> -Sandro
15:02:08 <Zakim> -pgearon
15:02:09 <Zakim> -Olivier
15:02:09 <Zakim> -cbuilara
15:02:13 <Zakim> -kasei
15:02:15 <Zakim> -AndyS
15:02:20 <axelpolleres> rrsagent, make records public