Chatlog 2012-04-03

See original RRSAgent log and preview nicely formatted version.

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

14:01:09 <LeeF> scribenick: cbuilara
14:01:31 <LeeF> regrets: Axel, Chime
14:01:46 <LeeF> topic: admin
14:01:54 <LeeF> PROPOSED: Accept last week's minutes at http://www.w3.org/2009/sparql/meeting/2012-03-27
14:02:46 <cbuilara> LeeF: the csv/tsv we have to work with Sandro about it so we can publish it
14:02:55 <LeeF> RESOLVED: Accept last week's minutes at http://www.w3.org/2009/sparql/meeting/2012-03-27
14:03:01 <cbuilara> LeeF: any concerns with last week minutes?
14:03:11 <cbuilara> LeeF: April 10th, any regrets?
14:03:17 <LeeF> (none)
14:03:19 <pgearon> at risk here
14:03:26 <LeeF> topic: Overview
14:04:10 <cbuilara> LeeF: status, need one more review from LeeF, I still have to do it, anybody would be uncomfortable to publish document as conditional LC?
14:04:27 <LeeF> PROPOSED: Publish Overview document as Last Call, conditional on review & changes in wake of review from LeeF
14:04:53 <AndyS> abstain
14:05:10 <kasei> +1
14:05:24 <pgearon> +1
14:05:25 <cbuilara> +1
14:05:27 <bglimm> +1
14:05:30 <LeeF> RESOLVED: Publish Overview document as Last Call, conditional on review & changes in wake of review from LeeF, AndyS abstaining
14:05:37 <LeeF> topic: Property paths
14:05:56 <LeeF> Axel's summary of property path options: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-dawg/2012AprJun/0000.html
14:05:56 <cbuilara> LeeF: Axel's summary
14:06:27 <LeeF> Axel's summary of path forward for property paths: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-dawg/2012AprJun/0001.html
14:07:08 <cbuilara> LeeF: the basic impression is that we have one consensus, try to generate a response to all 3 commenters and move forward
14:10:03 <kasei> q+ to ask about option 8 wording
14:10:14 <cbuilara> LeeF: summary of remaining options: option 3 was the most supported option last option, solved problems with one commenter, option 6 is the newest and scales back, pp can be viewed as syntactic short cut, it has support in the mailing list, will be discussed, option 7 adding distinct and all keywords for wrapping, option 8 leaves semantics unspecified 
14:11:00 <LeeF> ack kasei
14:11:00 <Zakim> kasei, you wanted to ask about option 8 wording
14:11:22 <LeeF> Andy's option 6 - http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-dawg/2012JanMar/0285.html
14:11:26 <cbuilara> LeeF: option 6 by Andy
14:11:31 <LeeF> Andy's option 6 - http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-dawg/2012JanMar/0286.html
14:11:47 <LeeF> 6.A:   /, |, ! as there are in 2LC.
14:11:48 <LeeF> 6.B:   *, +, ? are non-counting
14:11:48 <LeeF> 6.C:   No DISTINCT
14:11:48 <LeeF> 6.D:   No {} forms: {n}, {n,m}, {n,}, {,m}
14:13:10 <cbuilara> LeeF: it does not cover all the possible use cases 
14:13:41 <cbuilara> LeeF: it seems that covers most common cases
14:13:56 <cbuilara> LeeF: it cuts complexity that was getting PP
14:14:13 <bglimm> q+
14:14:17 <LeeF> ack bglimm
14:14:18 <cbuilara> LeeF: questions?
14:14:31 <cbuilara> bglimm: did you check with commenters? 
14:14:48 <cbuilara> LeeF: we did, if we agree we will submit the answer
14:15:08 <cbuilara> bglimm: we make the most complex operators non counting
14:15:38 <Zakim> +EricP
14:15:57 <kasei> I think 6 is the best path forward.
14:16:01 <cbuilara> LeeF: support or comments for option 6?
14:16:09 <MattPerry> +1 for option 6, others were getting too complicated
14:16:18 <bglimm> +1
14:16:21 <cbuilara> +1 for option 6
14:16:22 <AndyS> +1 to option 6.
14:16:25 <SteveH> +1
14:16:33 <pgearon> +1
14:17:29 <cbuilara> LeeF: lets go with option 6, I will make the response based on AndyS summary
14:18:18 <cbuilara> AndyS: I think question mark operator, I have not seen much of it
14:19:49 <cbuilara> AndyS: leaving it is the better choice
14:19:59 <LeeF> PROPOSED: Adopt option 6 as per http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-dawg/2012JanMar/0285.html and http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-dawg/2012JanMar/0286.html
14:20:38 <cbuilara> LeeF: we go ahead and adopt option 6
14:20:44 <kasei> +1
14:20:45 <MattPerry> +1
14:20:48 <cbuilara> +1
14:20:52 <Olivier> +1
14:20:58 <ericP> +0 # too ignorant to vote
14:20:59 <pgearon> +1
14:21:07 <LeeF> RESOLVED: Adopt option 6 as per http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-dawg/2012JanMar/0285.html and http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-dawg/2012JanMar/0286.html, EricP abstaining
14:21:47 <cbuilara> LeeF: amount of work perspective about the option 6?
14:22:12 <LeeF> ACTION: Lee to contact the 3 property path commenters to see if option 6 addresses their concerns with property paths
14:22:12 <trackbot> Created ACTION-605 - Contact the 3 property path commenters to see if option 6 addresses their concerns with property paths [on Lee Feigenbaum - due 2012-04-10].
14:22:23 <cbuilara> AndyS: I will start working on it, but I can't work properly until next week
14:23:09 <cbuilara> LeeF: any topic for discussion?
14:23:33 <cbuilara> LeeF: AndyS, what about the comments from the RDF WG?
14:23:43 <pgearon> +q
14:23:50 <ericP> q+
14:23:51 <pgearon> q-
14:23:52 <cbuilara> AndyS: there is an email
14:24:00 <Zakim> -AndyS
14:24:06 <LeeF> topic: colons
14:24:07 <LeeF> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-dawg/2012JanMar/0284.html
14:24:51 <ericP> {a:b:c:d}
14:25:00 <ericP> { a:b :c :d }
14:25:16 <cbuilara> ericP: this is how it parses now
14:25:31 <cbuilara> ericP: there is a backwards incompatibility
14:26:11 <cbuilara> LeeF: do we do this change too? or it works for the wg?
14:26:18 <pgearon> +q
14:26:22 <LeeF> ack pgearon
14:26:24 <LeeF> ack ericP
14:26:24 <ericP> q-
14:26:52 <cbuilara> pgearon: it is a good idea, but does it changes the grammar very much?
14:28:05 <kasei> people have already suggested / and how property paths will end up preventing that...
14:28:39 <cbuilara> SteveH; I can't think of a big issue
14:29:02 <pgearon> so long as it doesn't break anything existing, then I'm all for these changes
14:29:27 <ericP> q+ to also discuss http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/rdf/raw-file/default/rdf-turtle/index.html#term-turtle2-BLANK_NODE_LABEL
14:30:04 <ericP> PROPOSED: bare ':'s are allowed in local names (\'d ':'s not allowed)
14:30:14 <ericP> PROPOSED: bare ':'s are allowed in local names (\'d ':'s not allowed)
14:30:23 <LeeF> +1
14:30:25 <ericP> +1
14:30:35 <pgearon> +1
14:30:36 <kasei> 0
14:30:37 <cbuilara> 0
14:30:40 <MattPerry> +1
14:30:47 <bglimm> 0 not much clue about this...
14:30:51 <Olivier> 0
14:30:55 <LeeF> RESOLVED: bare ':'s are allowed in local names (\'d ':'s not allowed), Greg and Carlos and Birte and Olivier abstaining
14:31:49 <LeeF> ACTION: Andy to update grammar to allow colons in local names
14:31:50 <trackbot> Created ACTION-606 - Update grammar to allow colons in local names [on Andy Seaborne - due 2012-04-10].
14:32:27 <LeeF> http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/rdf/raw-file/default/rdf-turtle/index.html#term-turtle2-BLANK_NODE_LABEL
14:33:08 <cbuilara> ericP: if we allow escaping in local names, p and local, it allows the scape medical characters
14:34:19 <ericP> example _:\:foo
14:34:19 <cbuilara> ericP: the blank node labels in triple are the same than blank nodes labels in turtle
14:34:48 <cbuilara> ericP: no more labels like that _:\:foo
14:34:57 <LeeF> LeeF: Does anybody care?
14:35:02 <LeeF> (silence)
14:35:05 <ericP> +1
14:35:35 <bglimm> Zakim, mute me
14:35:36 <Zakim> bglimm should now be muted
14:36:01 <LeeF> PROPOSED: Change SPARQL blank node production to be in sync with the Turtle production (e.g. exclude escapes and encodings)
14:36:27 <ericP> +1
14:36:35 <bglimm> +1
14:36:41 <LeeF> RESOLVED: Change SPARQL blank node production to be in sync with the Turtle production (e.g. exclude escapes and encodings)
# SPECIAL MARKER FOR CHATSYNC.  DO NOT EDIT THIS LINE OR BELOW.  SRCLINESUSED=00000161