Chatlog 2011-11-22

See original RRSAgent log and preview nicely formatted version.

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

14:54:27 <RRSAgent> RRSAgent has joined #sparql
14:54:27 <RRSAgent> logging to http://www.w3.org/2011/11/22-sparql-irc
14:54:29 <trackbot> RRSAgent, make logs world
14:54:29 <Zakim> Zakim has joined #sparql
14:54:31 <trackbot> Zakim, this will be 77277
14:54:31 <Zakim> ok, trackbot; I see SW_(SPARQL)10:00AM scheduled to start in 6 minutes
14:54:32 <trackbot> Meeting: SPARQL Working Group Teleconference
14:54:32 <trackbot> Date: 22 November 2011
14:54:36 <LeeF> zakim, this will be SPARQL
14:54:36 <Zakim> ok, LeeF; I see SW_(SPARQL)10:00AM scheduled to start in 6 minutes
14:54:39 <LeeF> Chair: LeeF
14:54:42 <LeeF> Scribe: chimezie
14:54:57 <LeeF> Agenda: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-dawg/2011OctDec/0194.html
14:57:03 <Zakim> SW_(SPARQL)10:00AM has now started
14:57:08 <Zakim> +??P2
14:57:13 <cbuilara> zakim, ??P2 is me
14:57:13 <Zakim> +cbuilara; got it
14:59:19 <Zakim> + +33.4.92.38.aaaa
14:59:27 <bglimm> bglimm has joined #sparql
14:59:38 <Olivier> Zakim, aaaa is me
14:59:42 <Zakim> +Olivier; got it
14:59:46 <Zakim> +kasei
14:59:49 <Zakim> +??P3
15:00:12 <Zakim> +sandro
15:00:18 <bglimm> Zakim, ??P3 is me
15:00:18 <Zakim> +bglimm; got it
15:00:27 <bglimm> Zakim, mute me
15:00:27 <Zakim> bglimm should now be muted
15:00:47 <Zakim> +[IPcaller]
15:00:52 <AndyS> zakim, IP is me
15:00:52 <Zakim> sorry, AndyS, I do not recognize a party named 'IP'
15:00:56 <AndyS> zakim, IPCaller is me
15:00:56 <Zakim> +AndyS; got it
15:01:54 <swh> swh has joined #sparql
15:02:26 <Zakim> +pgearon
15:02:38 <AndyS> zakim, who is on the phone?
15:02:38 <Zakim> On the phone I see cbuilara, Olivier, kasei, bglimm (muted), sandro, AndyS, pgearon
15:02:40 <Zakim> +??P13
15:02:47 <swh> Zakim, ??P13 is me
15:02:47 <Zakim> +LeeF
15:02:48 <Zakim> +swh; got it
15:02:58 <LeeF> zakim, who's on the phone?
15:02:59 <Zakim> On the phone I see cbuilara, Olivier, kasei, bglimm (muted), sandro, AndyS, pgearon, swh, LeeF
15:03:32 <LeeF> topic: Admin
15:03:47 <LeeF> PROPOSED: Approve Last week's minutes: http://www.w3.org/2009/sparql/meeting/2011-11-15
15:03:53 <Zakim> +??P5
15:04:17 <NickH> zakim, ??P5 is me
15:04:17 <Zakim> +NickH; got it
15:04:20 <LeeF> RESOLVED: Approve Last week's minutes: http://www.w3.org/2009/sparql/meeting/2011-11-15
15:04:25 <NickH> zakim, mute me
15:04:25 <Zakim> NickH should now be muted
15:04:39 <LeeF> Next meeting: 2011-Nov-29 at standard time
15:05:04 <NickH> I will check
15:05:23 <LeeF> Regrets: AxelPolleres
15:05:33 <swh> I'm unlikely to be around next week (on holiday, in theory)
15:05:49 <NickH> yes, I can scribe next week
15:05:56 <LeeF> thanks, NickH!
15:06:00 <LeeF> scribe next week: NickH
15:06:04 <LeeF> AndyS: no new news from RDF WG
15:06:31 <LeeF> topic: query document
15:08:04 <LeeF> LeeF: ready for review next week?
15:08:13 <LeeF> AndyS: I have a couple of major things - order by with aggregates and escape sequences
15:08:44 <LeeF> AndyS: possibly ready next week
15:09:57 <bglimm> Zakim, unmute me
15:09:57 <Zakim> bglimm should no longer be muted
15:11:47 <swh> in the interests of expedience, I suggest we should "Consider ORDER BY count(*)" and not do it
15:12:16 <LeeF> AndyS: I will send escaping changes to RDF WG
15:12:40 <bglimm> Can't you just do (COUNT(*) AS ?x) ... ORDER BY ?x ?
15:13:50 <LeeF> AndyS: I think it's a one line change to make it allowed in ORDER BY, just missing right now
15:14:09 <LeeF> swh: I'm not sure if that's true, need to look through the algebra to see if all the information you need is available at the time that you run the ORDER BY
15:15:15 <bglimm> Zakim, mute me
15:15:15 <Zakim> bglimm should now be muted
15:15:23 <LeeF> LeeF: don't want to spend weeks and weeks on this (would rather punt), but hopefully we can see this week if it's easy or not
15:16:09 <LeeF> topic: Overview & Fed Documents
15:16:16 <LeeF> LeeF: we published them, yay! thanks to sandro, carlos, and axel
15:16:31 <LeeF> topic: Graph Store Protocol Document
15:17:07 <LeeF> ACTION: Sandro to review the graph store protocol document
15:17:08 <trackbot> Created ACTION-563 - Review the graph store protocol document [on Sandro Hawke - due 2011-11-29].
15:17:14 <LeeF> ACTION: Andy to review the graph store protocol document
15:17:14 <trackbot> Created ACTION-564 - Review the graph store protocol document [on Andy Seaborne - due 2011-11-29].
15:17:23 <LeeF> topic: Service Description Document
15:17:27 <LeeF> LeeF: Awaiting a review from Axel
15:17:40 <LeeF> topic: Entailment Regimes Document
15:17:48 <bglimm> Zakim, unmute me
15:17:48 <Zakim> bglimm should no longer be muted
15:18:18 <LeeF> LeeF: Birte forwarded review from Markus, now working on the changes
15:18:39 <LeeF> bglimm: part way through, don't expect to need group discussion for any of the comments
15:19:06 <LeeF> bglimm: Markus prefers that RDF and RDFS systems check consistency, but we've decided against that
15:19:13 <LeeF> topic: Update Document
15:19:18 <Zakim> -NickH
15:19:18 <bglimm> Zakim, mute me
15:19:19 <Zakim> bglimm should now be muted
15:19:40 <LeeF> LeeF: Status?
15:19:48 <LeeF> pgearon: not checked off on the wiki, but i think it's all done
15:19:57 <Zakim> +??P5
15:19:58 <NickH> zakim, ??P5 is me
15:19:58 <Zakim> +NickH; got it
15:20:02 <NickH> zakim, mute me
15:20:02 <Zakim> NickH should now be muted
15:21:15 <LeeF> AndyS: memory is that we're not going to do a 2nd LC for update
15:21:19 <LeeF> pgearon: matches my understanding
15:21:23 <LeeF> LeeF: I'm getting old & forgetful
15:22:06 <LeeF> topic: Protocol
15:23:25 <LeeF> LeeF: received and acted on 3 reviews
15:23:38 <LeeF> ... all implemented except for reference and link cleanup
15:24:37 <LeeF> LeeF: should we be asking for advice on what goes into the security section for the update part of the protocol?
15:26:03 <LeeF> http://www.w3.org/2009/sparql/docs/protocol-1.1/Overview.xml#policy-security
15:26:13 <LeeF> sandro: I can ask Thomas Roessler to take a quick look at it
15:27:18 <LeeF> (issues with browsers & and frag IDs with XML files)
15:27:30 <bglimm> Fragment doesn't work for me either (not even by copying only after pressing return again) also Firefox
15:28:42 <LeeF> ACTION: Andy to check revised 2.2.3 in protocol doc http://www.w3.org/2009/sparql/docs/protocol-1.1/Overview.xml#update-dataset
15:28:43 <trackbot> Created ACTION-565 - Check revised 2.2.3 in protocol doc http://www.w3.org/2009/sparql/docs/protocol-1.1/Overview.xml#update-dataset [on Andy Seaborne - due 2011-11-29].
15:29:53 <LeeF> topic: Comments
15:30:38 <bglimm> Zakim, mute me
15:30:38 <Zakim> bglimm was already muted, bglimm
15:30:50 <bglimm> Zakim, unmute me
15:30:50 <Zakim> bglimm should no longer be muted
15:31:45 <bglimm> Zakim, mute me
15:31:45 <Zakim> bglimm should now be muted
15:34:13 <LeeF> topic: Issues
15:34:18 <LeeF> LeeF: can maybe close open issues
15:34:20 <LeeF> ISSUE-33?
15:34:20 <trackbot> ISSUE-33 -- Can we use the correct meaning of the full slate of HTTP errors when specifying the update protocol via WSDL? -- open
15:34:20 <trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2009/sparql/track/issues/33
15:35:19 <Zakim> -NickH
15:35:53 <LeeF> PROPOSED: Close ISSUE-33 based on current protocol editor's draft which allows protocol implementations to use any HTTP success or failure response codes as long as they're used per the semantics of HTTP
15:36:06 <AndyS> seconded
15:36:19 <LeeF> RESOLVED: Close ISSUE-33 based on current protocol editor's draft which allows protocol implementations to use any HTTP success or failure response codes as long as they're used per the semantics of HTTP
15:36:25 <LeeF> ISSUE-60?
15:36:25 <trackbot> ISSUE-60 -- What does the response to a SPARQL Update request look like in SPARQL protocol? -- open
15:36:25 <trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2009/sparql/track/issues/60
15:36:45 <Zakim> +??P5
15:36:45 <NickH> zakim, ??P5 is me
15:36:46 <Zakim> +NickH; got it
15:36:47 <NickH> zakim, mute me
15:36:47 <Zakim> NickH should now be muted
15:37:56 <LeeF> PROPOSED: Close ISSUE-60 based on current protocol editor's draft which doesn't mandate any response body for an update request but allows them to be included at an implementation's discretion
15:38:08 <kasei> +1
15:38:11 <AndyS> seconded
15:38:18 <LeeF> RESOLVED: Close ISSUE-60 based on current protocol editor's draft which doesn't mandate any response body for an update request but allows them to be included at an implementation's discretion
15:38:25 <LeeF> ISSUE-65?
15:38:25 <trackbot> ISSUE-65 -- Does the SPARQL Protocol need a single form parameter that can take either a query string or an update request string? -- open
15:38:25 <trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2009/sparql/track/issues/65
15:39:38 <LeeF> PROPOSED: Close ISSUE-65 with no change, with the answer being "no" 
15:40:08 <AndyS> seconded
15:40:18 <kasei> 0
15:40:28 <LeeF> RESOLVED: Close ISSUE-65 with no change, with the answer being "no", kasei abstaining
15:40:36 <LeeF> trackbot, close ISSUE-33
15:40:37 <trackbot> ISSUE-33 Can we use the correct meaning of the full slate of HTTP errors when specifying the update protocol via WSDL? closed
15:40:42 <LeeF> trackbot, close ISSUE-60
15:40:42 <trackbot> ISSUE-60 What does the response to a SPARQL Update request look like in SPARQL protocol? closed
15:40:45 <LeeF> trackbot, close ISSUE-65
15:40:45 <trackbot> ISSUE-65 Does the SPARQL Protocol need a single form parameter that can take either a query string or an update request string? closed
15:41:23 <LeeF> close ACTION-542
15:41:23 <trackbot> ACTION-542 Check pubrules for fed query. closed
15:41:30 <LeeF> close ACTION-561
15:41:30 <trackbot> ACTION-561 Review SPARQL protocol document closed
15:43:01 <LeeF> close ACTION-555
15:43:02 <trackbot> ACTION-555 Review update as soon as it's ready closed
15:43:06 <LeeF> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-dawg/2011OctDec/0143.html
15:44:09 <LeeF> close ACTION-510
15:44:10 <trackbot> ACTION-510 Look at http://www.w3.org/2009/sparql/wiki/CommentResponse:DB-6 closed
15:44:20 <LeeF> close ACTION-516
15:44:20 <trackbot> ACTION-516 Email list with proposed design for dataset parameters in protocol for update requests closed
15:44:27 <LeeF> close ACTION-292
15:44:28 <trackbot> ACTION-292 Make sure text on transactionality/concurrency gets added to protocol document closed
15:44:37 <LeeF> close ACTION-511
15:44:37 <trackbot> ACTION-511 Ask team (Ivan) about whether the patch in http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-dawg-comments/2011Jul/0007 can be applied without any W3C process closed
15:44:51 <LeeF> close ACTION-478
15:44:52 <trackbot> ACTION-478 Figure out what the status of tests for the new SPARQL 1.1 functions are closed
15:45:28 <LeeF> ACTION-366?
15:45:28 <trackbot> ACTION-366 -- Lee Feigenbaum to remind Sandro about registering JSON & Update MIME types, and checking on the Query and XML format status -- due 2011-01-25 -- OPEN
15:45:28 <trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2009/sparql/track/actions/366
15:46:59 <AndyS> http://www.w3.org/2009/sparql/docs/json-results/json-results.xml#content-type
15:47:49 <sandro> http://www.iana.org/assignments/media-types/application/index.html
15:48:10 <LeeF> ACTION: Sandro to figure out what has to happen to register the MIME types for JSON results and Update requests
15:48:10 <trackbot> Created ACTION-566 - Figure out what has to happen to register the MIME types for JSON results and Update requests [on Sandro Hawke - due 2011-11-29].
15:48:27 <AndyS> Need sparql-update
15:48:44 <LeeF> close ACTION-366
15:48:44 <trackbot> ACTION-366 Remind Sandro about registering JSON & Update MIME types, and checking on the Query and XML format status closed
15:49:50 <LeeF> close ACTION-562
15:49:50 <trackbot> ACTION-562 Figure out why old text is in the protocol document for specifying RDF datasets in an update operation closed
15:50:10 <sandro> (our procedure: http://www.w3.org/2002/06/registering-mediatype )
15:50:19 <AndyS> http://www.w3.org/TR/sparql11-results-json/ is LC
15:50:48 <LeeF> close ACTION-401
15:50:48 <trackbot> ACTION-401 Draft an answer for JB-4 closed
15:51:26 <LeeF> close ACTION-560
15:51:26 <trackbot> ACTION-560 Make a best effort attempt to review or delegate a review for protocol closed
15:52:10 <Zakim> -NickH
15:52:24 <LeeF> close ACTION-549
15:52:24 <trackbot> ACTION-549 Review Graph store protocol for 2nd LC/CR(?) as soon as it's ready. closed
15:52:34 <Zakim> +??P0
15:52:45 <LeeF> close action-558
15:52:45 <trackbot> ACTION-558 Discuss with lee where to put "future work" closed
15:52:50 <NickH> Zakim, ??P0 is me
15:52:50 <Zakim> +NickH; got it
15:52:55 <NickH> Zakim, mute me
15:52:55 <Zakim> NickH should now be muted
15:53:01 <LeeF> close action-479
15:53:01 <trackbot> ACTION-479 Finalize overview doc closed
15:53:12 <LeeF> close action-514
15:53:12 <trackbot> ACTION-514 Look at Greg's review of federated query closed
15:53:34 <LeeF> close action-545
15:53:34 <trackbot> ACTION-545 Follow up with sandro on final publication of Overview and Fed query at earliest possible date (tentatively 10 november) closed
15:53:45 <LeeF> close action-559
15:53:45 <trackbot> ACTION-559 Review protocol closed
15:53:54 <LeeF> close action-548
15:53:55 <trackbot> ACTION-548 Review Graph store protocol for 2nd LC/CR(?) as soon as it's ready. closed
15:54:04 <swh> LeeF, I think http://www.w3.org/2009/sparql/docs/query-1.1/rq25.xml#operatorExtensibility covers that action
15:55:30 <Zakim> -LeeF
15:55:32 <Zakim> -sandro
15:55:34 <Zakim> -pgearon
15:55:34 <Zakim> -swh
15:55:35 <Zakim> -Olivier
15:55:37 <bglimm> bye
15:55:44 <Zakim> -NickH
15:55:45 <Zakim> -kasei
15:55:46 <Zakim> -bglimm
15:55:50 <Zakim> -AndyS
15:55:53 <Zakim> -cbuilara
15:55:54 <Zakim> SW_(SPARQL)10:00AM has ended
15:55:56 <Zakim> Attendees were cbuilara, +33.4.92.38.aaaa, Olivier, kasei, sandro, bglimm, AndyS, pgearon, LeeF, swh, NickH
15:58:04 <swh> LeeF, http://www.w3.org/2009/sparql/docs/query-1.1/rq25.xml#extensionFunctions is what I was after, it is in there
16:39:58 <cbuilara> cbuilara has left #sparql
18:10:41 <Zakim> Zakim has left #sparql
18:38:54 <MacTed> MacTed has joined #sparql
19:21:53 <swh> swh has joined #sparql
# SPECIAL MARKER FOR CHATSYNC.  DO NOT EDIT THIS LINE OR BELOW.  SRCLINESUSED=00000227