Chatlog 2009-03-10

From SPARQL Working Group
Revision as of 05:12, 11 March 2009 by Lfeigenb (Talk | contribs)

(diff) ← Older revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
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. <LeeF> present: Lee, Luke, Andy, John, kasei, iv_an_ru, ivanh, Axel, Alex, Steve, Eric, kjetil, Orri, Phil, Yimin, Chimezie, David

13:47:53 <RRSAgent> RRSAgent has joined #sparql
13:47:53 <RRSAgent> logging to http://www.w3.org/2009/03/10-sparql-irc
13:48:09 <LeeF> zakim, this will be SPARQL
13:48:09 <Zakim> ok, LeeF; I see SW_(SPARQL)10:00AM scheduled to start in 12 minutes
13:48:13 <LeeF> zakim, code?
13:48:13 <Zakim> the conference code is 77277 (tel:+1.617.761.6200 tel:+33.4.89.06.34.99 tel:+44.117.370.6152), LeeF
13:48:41 <LeeF> rrsagent, draft minutes
13:48:41 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2009/03/10-sparql-minutes.html LeeF
13:48:47 <LeeF> rrsagent, makes minutes world
13:48:47 <RRSAgent> I'm logging. I don't understand 'makes minutes world', LeeF.  Try /msg RRSAgent help
13:48:50 <LeeF> rrsagent, makes log world
13:48:50 <RRSAgent> I'm logging. I don't understand 'makes log world', LeeF.  Try /msg RRSAgent help
13:48:53 <LeeF> rrsagent, make log world
13:49:13 <LeeF> Regrets: Bijan
13:49:47 <LeeF> Chair: LeeF
13:49:51 <LeeF> Scribe: Phil Brooks
13:50:58 <LeeF>  Agenda: http://www.w3.org/2009/sparql/wiki/Agenda-2009-03-10
13:52:02 <SteveH> SteveH has joined #sparql
13:52:05 <kasei> kasei has joined #sparql
14:08:27 <LeeF> Scribenick: Phil
14:08:43 <LeeF> topic: Administrivia
14:08:57 <LeeF> PROPOSED: Approve minutes at http://www.w3.org/2009/03/03-sparql-minutes.html
14:09:17 <LeeF> RESOLVED: Approve minutes at http://www.w3.org/2009/03/03-sparql-minutes.html
14:09:18 <Phil> Minutes from last week approved.
14:09:30 <ivanh> topic: next meeting
14:09:49 <Souri> Souri has joined #sparql
14:10:05 <Phil> Next Meeting: 10:00am EDT on March 17
14:10:39 <LeeF> topic: Face to Face
14:11:02 <LeeF> -> http://www.w3.org/2009/sparql/wiki/F2F1 Face to Face wiki page
14:11:47 <ivanh> q+
14:12:31 <ericP> q+ to talk about sponsorship
14:12:45 <ywang4> it seems i could not login the wiki with my w3c account...
14:13:02 <AxelPolleres> +1 to have standard setup for "normal" dial-in as well.
14:13:08 <LeeF> ywang4, I'll ask the Wiki Folks about it
14:13:15 <ywang4> thanks
14:13:17 <Phil> F2F scheduled from May 6-7.  In person attendance encouraged.  Everyone should check their calendars and let Lee know who will be attending (for planning purposes).
14:13:31 <LeeF> queue=
14:13:58 <Phil> Cost at MIT is $20/day.  Looking for sponsors for the MIT site.
14:14:25 <Phil> Parties interested in sponsoring the MIT site should contact Eric.
14:14:34 <Phil> (cheap advertising!)   :-)
14:15:07 <AxelPolleres> ... two options for alternate location: Brussels(?) and Manchester.
14:15:34 <AndyS> Bristol
14:16:00 <AxelPolleres> s/Brussels(?)/Bristol/
14:16:14 <ivanh> q+
14:16:20 <LeeF> ack iva
14:16:21 <LeeF> ack ivan
14:16:30 <Phil> Opportunity for 2nd F2F at TPAC2009 in Santa Clara, CA the week of Nov. 2-6, 2009.  What does everyone think?
14:17:18 <Phil> IvanH: Santa Clara may be too expensive.  W3C considering alternate location - will decide in several weeks.
14:17:45 <iv_an_ru> For me, CA in Nov would be nice contrast with Novosibirsk in Nov :)
14:18:55 <Phil> ISWC is week before TPAC2009; attending both could be problematic/costly
14:19:34 <Phil> ISWC is Oct. 25-29
14:19:41 <AxelPolleres> co-location with ISWC would be an option.
14:19:42 <ericP> ISWC2009 is 25-29 October per http://iswc2009.semanticweb.org/ 
14:19:44 <Phil> Alternately, F2F could occur at ISWC
14:21:57 <Phil> TPAC may be a better option as there will be opportunity to integrate with other W3C groups.
14:25:37 <ivanh> Topic: overview of features
14:22:19 <LeeF> -> http://www.w3.org/2009/sparql/wiki/Category:Features feature prpodsals
14:24:16 <ericP> i wonder if we could use chad for rating the priorities
14:25:17 <Phil> Lee and Axel's role is to ensure that the "right" list of features is adopted (i.e. Lee wants to make everyone unhappy - at least, a little!)
14:26:35 <Phil> Lee reminds that the group is responsible for creating the specifications for the features that are adopted (and that is not trivial).
14:27:16 <AxelPolleres> Lee: Point 1: We won't probably be able to do all in 18month, that might guide us to narrow down the number.
14:29:28 <AxelPolleres> Lee: Support by implementations important, pervasive support, usefulness. Can requested features be done with the language as is?
14:29:34 <AndyS> Lee: Point 3: SPARQL already has some extension points
14:30:04 <AxelPolleres> Lee: option: standardize on extensibility points rather than extensions themselves.
14:30:47 <AndyS> Lee: Framework for features to converge outside of this WG process
14:30:52 <Phil> Lee: The features that get adopted must be interoperable (and should be core to the language).  SPARQL v1 already has some extensibility points; just because we "could" standardize an extension does not mean we "have to".  It may be a better use of our time to standardize on extensibility points rather than to standardize an extension in and of itself.  For example, standardizing a service option may advance SPARQL further (especially with respect to interoperabilit
14:32:36 <Zakim> -ywang4
14:32:47 <Zakim> +ywang4
14:33:38 <Phil> Lee: It's unrealistic to review all the proposed features on a teleconference; participation on the SPARQL working group must include work outside of the call.  In particular, please start threads on the mailing list regarding your "favorite" feature and why.  Others should reply to the posts, ask questions, clarify as needed, challenge as desired, etc.  In summary, the mailing lists (and associated threads) will be the main method for discussing the various feature
14:33:43 <ericP> q+ to suggest a mailing convention like Subject: [AccessingRdfLists] blah blah blah
14:34:16 <LeeF> ack ericP
14:34:16 <Zakim> ericP, you wanted to suggest a mailing convention like Subject: [AccessingRdfLists] blah blah blah
14:34:35 <ivanh> q+
14:34:45 <LeeF> ack ivan
14:34:56 <AxelPolleres> +1 to distinct mail-subjects
14:34:56 <iv_an_ru> There are two features: BI and Federation. Others are minor details of these two :)
14:35:12 <chimezie> There definately seems to be some overlap
14:35:37 <AxelPolleres> +1 to offline go over the list and try to propose merge to authors.
14:35:48 <Phil> There may be some features that could be merged - Lee encourages anyone interested in doing so to review which are candidates for merging and then make such a proposal.
14:36:02 <AxelPolleres> q+
14:37:04 <LeeF> ack AxelPolleres
14:37:45 <Phil> Lee: All work group participants come from varying backgrounds and with different opinions - we will try to reach consensus.  However, we all need to maintain an open mind as we review the features and consider which ones to go forward with.
14:38:54 <iv_an_ru> First we should agree about some objectives that are more precise than "better SPARQL, upward-compatible"
14:38:59 <AxelPolleres> SteveH, ok that overconsolidation should be avoided, but try to make links *and differences* with related features explicit. 
14:39:43 <ericP> as of last night, my top priorities were update and lists
14:40:02 <LeeF> topic: ProjectExpressions
<LeeF> summary: initial straw poll gives (+/0/-): 13/3/0
14:40:05 <LeeF> -> http://www.w3.org/2009/sparql/wiki/Feature:ProjectExpressions 
14:41:15 <ivanh> q+
14:42:06 <AndyS> I would relate it to constructors for RDF terms.
14:42:08 <LeeF> ack ivan
14:42:34 <chimezie> i think it returns a boolean
14:43:09 <chimezie> pure post-processing
14:43:14 <Phil> Ivan asked clarifying question about first example - the "(?age > 18)" projects a boolean value
14:44:08 <AxelPolleres> q+
14:44:08 <LeeF> zakim, who's here?
14:44:09 <Zakim> On the phone I see LukeWM, AndyS, john-l (muted), kasei (muted), Lee_Feigenbaum, iv_an_ru, Ivan, AxelPolleres, AlexPassant, SteveH, EricP, kjetil (muted), Orri, Phil,
14:44:12 <SteveH> sorry, it's a wacky first example
14:44:13 <Zakim> ... Chimezie_Ogbuji, DaveNewman, Souri, ywang4
14:44:14 <Zakim> On IRC I see Souri, ywang4, chimezie, Phil, AlexPassant, kasei, SteveH, RRSAgent, Zakim, AndyS, AxelPolleres, john-l, LukeWM, ivan, AndyS_, iv_an_ru, LeeF, sandro, kjetil,
14:44:16 <ivanh> q+
14:44:17 <Zakim> ... trackbot, ericP
14:44:17 <SteveH> mea culpa
14:44:29 <john-l> No, I think it's a fine first example, once you understand what's going on.
14:44:43 <LeeF> AxelPolleres: Might be one or the other with assignment
14:44:56 <ericP> i agree, and assignment is more powerful
14:44:57 <LeeF> ack ivan
14:45:00 <LeeF> ack AxelPolleres
14:45:04 <AxelPolleres> q-
14:45:04 <iv_an_ru> +q
14:45:29 <LeeF> ack iv_an_ru
14:45:32 <Phil> Lee: Syntax debates should be reserved for the mailing list
14:45:40 <john-l> Perhaps say "whether the person is over 18" instead of "where the person is over 18"?
14:47:20 <Souri> +1
14:47:28 <john-l> +0
14:47:28 <SteveH> +1
14:47:31 <ericP> +0
14:47:34 <Phil> Polling of opinions regarding Project Expressions (poll on IRC)
14:47:37 <AlexPassant> +1
14:47:38 <Phil> +1
14:47:39 <ivanh> +1
14:47:39 <kjetil> +0
14:47:40 <kasei> +1
14:47:40 <AxelPolleres> +1 (modulo redundancy avoidance w.r.t. assignment)
14:47:40 <ywang4> +1
14:47:41 <LukeWM> +1
14:47:46 <iv_an_ru> +1
14:47:50 <chimezie> +1
14:47:56 <AndyS> +1
14:47:58 <kasei> and agree with AndyS regarding the potential for rewriting
14:48:07 <LeeF> +1
14:49:14 <Phil> In general, the group seems to be strongly in favor of Project Expressions.
14:49:19 <LeeF> topic: subselects
<LeeF> summary: initial straw poll gives (+/0/-): 8/8/1
14:49:21 <LeeF> -> http://www.w3.org/2009/sparql/wiki/Feature:SubSelects
14:49:26 <Phil> Next topic: subselects
14:50:04 <LeeF> SteveH: subselects gives you other features "for free"
14:50:15 <LeeF> ... e.g. !ASK for some forms of negation
14:50:35 <ericP> q+ to say point out that unlike SQL, we've not needed subselects so far for e.g. coherent OPTIONALS (outer joins) and UNIONS.
14:51:08 <ivanh> q+
14:51:20 <Phil> In addition to Virtuoso as listed on the Wiki, there are other implementers of sub-select as well.
14:51:37 <LeeF> ack ericP
14:51:37 <Zakim> ericP, you wanted to say point out that unlike SQL, we've not needed subselects so far for e.g. coherent OPTIONALS (outer joins) and UNIONS.
14:51:38 <Phil> (at least 2, anyway)
14:52:17 <chimezie> +q to suggest we consider restricted subselects rather than all or nothing
14:52:53 <AndyS> The cost to the algebra is actually quite small to allow nesting queries.  One issue: breaks the multiset/sequence distinction but it's fixable and probably needed any way
14:52:57 <LeeF> ack ivan
14:53:00 <SteveH> q+ to disagree with eric
14:53:01 <ivanh> ?supp+>tpcd:acctbal
14:53:10 <AndyS> Related to: EXISTS/NOT EXISTS/UNSAID
14:53:19 <AndyS> which are a sub-ASK
14:55:24 <Souri> What does "+>" in ?supp+>tpcd:acctbal stand for?
14:56:01 <AxelPolleres> Is +> doable with braketted syntax?
14:56:20 <SteveH> AxelPolleres: apprently because the example after is suposed to be equivalent
14:56:28 <AxelPolleres> s/braketted/bracketed/
14:56:39 <Phil> Lee: Simpler examples on sub-select wiki might help.  
14:56:39 <Phil> Orri: There have been simpler social-networking examples in the mailing lists.
14:56:43 <SteveH> sorry, AxelPolleres, not :
14:57:33 <john-l> I'm not familiar with TPC.
14:57:40 <chimezie> i am not familiar, unfortunately
14:57:40 <LukeWM> I'm not either
14:58:58 <Phil> Many folks are not familiar with the TPC queries; therefore, the simplest queries should be used for all of the feature categories (instead of the more complex TPC queries).
14:58:58 <LeeF> q?
14:59:06 <LeeF> ack chimezie
14:59:06 <Zakim> chimezie, you wanted to suggest we consider restricted subselects rather than all or nothing
14:59:33 <LeeF> ack SteveH
14:59:33 <Zakim> SteveH, you wanted to disagree with eric
15:00:04 <LeeF> SteveH: adding too many surface syntax features makes query language complicated
15:00:05 <Souri> I am somewhat familiar, but we should decouple the examples from TPC benchmark to explain the utility.
15:00:15 <LeeF> zakim, who's here?
15:00:15 <Zakim> On the phone I see LukeWM, AndyS, john-l (muted), kasei (muted), Lee_Feigenbaum, iv_an_ru, Ivan, AxelPolleres, AlexPassant, SteveH, EricP, kjetil (muted), Orri, Phil,
15:00:25 <Zakim> On IRC I see Souri, ywang4, chimezie, Phil, AlexPassant, kasei, SteveH, RRSAgent, Zakim, AndyS, AxelPolleres, john-l, LukeWM, ivan, AndyS_, iv_an_ru, LeeF, sandro, kjetil,
15:00:21 <Zakim> ... Chimezie_Ogbuji, DaveNewman, Souri, ywang4
15:00:21 <SteveH> +1
15:00:21 <AlexPassant> 0
15:00:23 <john-l> +0
15:00:25 <Phil> Polling for sub-selects:
15:00:28 <Zakim> ... trackbot, ericP
15:00:29 <kasei> +0
15:00:31 <LukeWM> +1
15:00:32 <iv_an_ru> +1
15:00:33 <kjetil> +1
15:00:33 <chimezie> +0
15:00:35 <ericP> SteveH, i understand your point. would like to look in detail with you
15:00:35 <ericP> -1
15:00:42 <Souri> +0.75
15:00:42 <ivanh> +0
15:00:42 <LeeF> Orri: 1
15:00:42 <Phil> +0
15:00:53 <LeeF> David: +1
15:01:00 <LeeF> +0
15:01:06 <AxelPolleres> +0 
15:01:11 <AndyS> +1
15:01:23 <SteveH> ericP, yes, sure
15:01:47 <ericP> my hunch is that the verb count ends up the same
15:01:50 <chimezie> take care
15:01:56 <Phil> meeting adjourned.
# SPECIAL MARKER FOR CHATSYNC.  DO NOT EDIT THIS LINE OR BELOW.  SRCLINESUSED=00000400