Chatlog 2009-06-16

From SPARQL Working Group
Revision as of 16:31, 17 June 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.

<AxelPolleres> Present: Axel, bglimm, kasei, Alex, SteveH, Simon, Andy, KjetilK, bijan, Orri
<AxelPolleres> Regrets: IvanH, Eric, Lee, Prateek, Paul, Chimezie
<AxelPolleres> Meeting: SPARQL WG Weekly Teleconference
<AxelPolleres> Date: 2009-06-16
14:01:28 <AxelPolleres> scribenick: bglimm
14:01:28 <AxelPolleres> Chair: Axel Polleres
14:01:34 <AxelPolleres> scribe: Birte Glimm
14:04:00 <bglimm> AxelPolleres: Many people are at SemTec and cannot attend today
14:04:12 <AxelPolleres> http://www.w3.org/2009/sparql/wiki/Agenda-2009-06-16
14:04:31 <bglimm> AxelPolleres: let's approve the minutes from last time
14:04:31 <AxelPolleres> http://www.w3.org/2009/sparql/meeting/2009-06-09
14:04:45 <bglimm> ... any objections? or additions?
14:05:03 <bglimm> ... nothing, so the minutes are approved
14:05:22 <bglimm> Alex: I am listed, but I wasn't there
14:05:44 <AxelPolleres> PROPOSED: Approve minutes with Alex being removed from the attendees list.
14:06:10 <AxelPolleres> ACTION: Axel Eric to update minutes
14:06:10 <trackbot> Created ACTION-41 - Eric to update minutes [on Axel Polleres - due 2009-06-23].
14:06:38 <bglimm> AxelPolleres: Can we approve it with the amendments?
14:06:39 <AxelPolleres> RESOLVED: Approve minutes with Alex being removed from the attendees list.
14:06:47 <AlexPassant> regrets for 2009-06-09 are there actually: http://www.w3.org/2009/sparql/meeting/2009-06-02
14:07:07 <bglimm> AxelPolleres: next meeting is in one week, 23rd June same time
14:07:34 <KjetilK> Zakim, unmute me
14:07:34 <Zakim> KjetilK should no longer be muted
14:07:49 <bglimm> ... scribe for next week: KjetilK
14:08:00 <KjetilK> Zakim, mute me
14:08:00 <Zakim> KjetilK should now be muted
14:08:04 <SimonS> Regrets for next week. I will be travelling, maybe I can join on IRC
14:08:01 <bglimm> topic: Liasions
14:08:28 <bglimm> AxelPolleres: Bijan is not here, so no news from OWL and no news from RIF
14:08:37 <bglimm> .. no news from liasons today
14:08:43 <bglimm> topic: actions
14:09:08 <bglimm> AxelPolleres: we some open actions: 16 on LeeF continious
14:09:15 <Zakim> +[IPcaller]
14:09:24 <bglimm> ... action 17 on Steve
14:09:35 <bglimm> Steve: I think that is obsolete now
14:09:58 <bglimm> AxelPolleres: Action 19 on Ivan is open
14:10:21 <bglimm> Orri: What is that action?
14:10:32 <AndyS> """Send to the mailing list a few example cases (data, query, results) of SELECT queries in FILTERs"""
14:10:34 <bglimm> AxelPolleres: We have to look that up in the minutes
14:11:01 <bglimm> ... Action 28 is continued and action 32 on Simon is open 
14:11:09 <bglimm> Simon: Action 32 should be completed
14:11:25 <bglimm> AxelPolleres: Action 36 is completed
14:11:44 <bglimm> ... Action 37 is completed
14:11:44 <kasei> action-38 can be closed, and is on the agenda for later
14:12:00 <kasei> Zakim, unmute me
14:12:00 <Zakim> kasei should no longer be muted
14:12:21 <bglimm> ... Action 38 on Greg is completed and can be closed
14:12:25 <kasei> Zakim, mute me
14:12:25 <Zakim> kasei should now be muted
14:12:35 <bglimm> ... we have 2 open actions to review the F&R docs
14:12:45 <bglimm> ... we leave this open for now
14:12:55 <bglimm> ... action review is done
14:13:02 <bglimm> Topic: F&R Document
14:13:07 <KjetilK> Zakim, unmute me
14:13:07 <Zakim> KjetilK should no longer be muted
14:13:26 <bglimm> kjetilK: We just 2 things open
14:13:36 <bglimm> ... the short name and the introduction
14:13:59 <bglimm> ... we have the project description
14:14:15 <bglimm> ... SteveH couldn't finish his review
14:14:35 <bglimm> ... whether Chime has reviewed is not known
14:14:40 <AxelPolleres> q?
14:15:03 <bglimm> AxelPolleres: Lets look at the open issues for this
14:15:10 <bglimm> ... short name first
14:15:12 <AxelPolleres> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-dawg/2009AprJun/0383.html
14:15:21 <AxelPolleres> http://www.w3.org/TR/sparql-features/
14:15:38 <bglimm> ... proposal was to use the name SPARQL Features 
14:15:54 <bglimm> ... but this has no version number 
14:16:06 <bglimm> ... any opinions?
14:16:53 <bglimm> AndyS: Can we ask the team contact and ask what is the standard
14:17:19 <bglimm> AxelPolleres: They are not here at the moment
14:17:21 <AndyS> e.g. TR/xpath-datamodel/  -- no version number (and it's xpath 2.0)
14:17:39 <bglimm> ... I can ask the team contact
14:17:45 <AndyS> but /TR/xmlschema-2/
14:17:54 <AxelPolleres> ACTION: Axel to ask team contacts whether http://www.w3.org/TR/sparql-features/ is ok
14:17:54 <trackbot> Created ACTION-42 - Ask team contacts whether http://www.w3.org/TR/sparql-features/ is ok [on Axel Polleres - due 2009-06-23].
14:18:12 <KjetilK> +1
14:18:22 <bglimm> AxelPolleres: Can I propose to go with that name unless there is some objection from the team contact?
14:18:29 <bglimm> ... do we need a backup solution
14:18:32 <bglimm> ... ?
14:18:48 <AxelPolleres> PROPOSED: F&R will be published under http://www.w3.org/TR/sparql-features/ unless there are concerns from the team-contacts.
14:19:10 <AxelPolleres> RESOLVED: F&R will be published under http://www.w3.org/TR/sparql-features/ unless there are concerns from the team-contacts.
14:19:12 <bglimm> AxelPolleres: Lets ressolve this and see
14:19:51 <bglimm> ... My concern is that the previous versions said RDF SPARQL and not just SPARQL
14:20:23 <SteveH> lets delagate
14:20:27 <KjetilK> +1
14:20:29 <bglimm> ... I think we can go with that for now
14:20:57 <bglimm> AndyS: your resolution says that the doc will be published like that, so that might cause a problem
14:21:01 <AndyS> NB we have not decided to publish yet
14:21:19 <bglimm> AxelPolleres: So should I change the resolution?
14:22:04 <AxelPolleres> PROPOSED: in case of concerns, leave the naming decision to team contacts.
14:22:25 <bglimm> .... is it ok to leave it to the team contact for the naming issues?
14:22:30 <bglimm> ... any objections?
14:22:36 <AxelPolleres> RESOLVED: in case of concerns, leave the naming decision to team contacts.
14:22:46 <bglimm> ... So, there are none and I suggest to resolve this
14:22:54 <bglimm> Topic: Introduction
14:23:08 <bglimm> AxelPolleres: Did you incorporate what was on the wiki?
14:23:26 <bglimm> KjetilK: I havn't, but there was nothing substantial
14:23:26 <AxelPolleres> http://www.w3.org/2009/sparql/wiki/Features_Introduction_strawman
14:24:03 <bglimm> AxelPolleres: I looked over it. It is not a substantial change. It is mostly to reorder some parts
14:24:36 <bglimm> ... also there are links to the resolutions and I was hoping that this fulfils Andy's concern about the timestamp feature
14:24:52 <AxelPolleres> q?
14:25:24 <bglimm> AxelPolleres: Would such a reordering be ok?
14:25:33 <AlexPassant> q+
14:25:40 <bglimm> ... if there are no objections, I propose to change it like that. 
14:26:06 <bglimm> AlexPassant: I would like to keep 1.1 and the structure of the documents
14:26:38 <AxelPolleres> ACTION: Alex to adopt http://www.w3.org/2009/sparql/wiki/Features_Introduction_strawman with two subsections.
14:26:38 <trackbot> Created ACTION-43 - Adopt http://www.w3.org/2009/sparql/wiki/Features_Introduction_strawman with two subsections. [on Alexandre Passant - due 2009-06-23].
14:26:46 <bglimm> AxelPolleres: I will give you an action to adapt the document
14:27:07 <bglimm> ... any more objections? 
14:27:20 <bglimm> ... none, so lets do that. 
14:27:27 <bglimm> ... next, examples
14:27:49 <AxelPolleres> http://www.w3.org/2009/sparql/wiki/Feature:ProjectExpressions
14:28:17 <bglimm> KjetilK: I took text from the wiki and put it in the document 
14:28:24 <AxelPolleres> http://www.w3.org/2009/sparql/docs/features/#Project_expressions
14:28:28 <bglimm> AxelPolleres: Let's have a look
14:28:35 <KjetilK> http://www.w3.org/2009/sparql/docs/features/#Project_expressions_syntax
14:29:04 <bglimm> ... should the construct with expressions be left in, for the moment it was 
14:29:26 <bijan> bijan has joined #sparql
14:29:27 <bglimm> ... it should be clear that this is not the complex expressions
14:29:49 <bglimm> ... Did you include the implementations list?
14:30:05 <bglimm> kjetilK: I havn't included that
14:30:32 <Zakim> +??P55
14:30:35 <bglimm> ... it seems  that the doc is not self-contained with many links
14:30:37 <bijan> zakim, ??P55 is me
14:30:37 <Zakim> +bijan; got it
14:30:48 <bglimm> AxelPolleres: So you don't have any?
14:31:03 <AndyS> Checking F&O:  fn:concat --> fn:string-join
14:31:05 <AxelPolleres> (simon was asking)
14:31:16 <AndyS>  fn:concat implies a cast, string-join does not
14:31:36 <bglimm> AxelPolleres: There are some implementations listed, so should we unify that?
14:31:59 <KjetilK> AndyS: fixed :-)
14:32:18 <AxelPolleres> http://www.w3.org/2009/sparql/docs/features/#Negation
14:32:23 <bglimm> ... there are some concerns about an example in the negations subsection
14:32:30 <bglimm> .. any opinions?
14:32:39 <bglimm> ... Kjetil have you seen that email
14:32:49 <SteveH> It needs a 2nd example
14:32:54 <bglimm> kjetilK: I saw it and thought about it a bit
14:33:16 <bglimm> AxelPolleres: what we need is an approval of Andy because he raised the concerns?
14:33:28 <bglimm> AndyS: Which change? 
14:33:38 <kasei> small typo in 2.3.3: "does not no anyone" shoudl be "does not know anyone"
14:33:47 <bglimm> AxelPolleres: In the negation section. 
14:34:23 <bglimm> AndyS: The wording says syntax, but we actually make deeper changes
14:34:38 <kasei> I think it is strange to show an example from SeRQL for negation when there are existing SPARQL approaches...
14:35:02 <AndyS> agree with kasei
14:35:12 <AndyS> Use his impl as example.
14:35:17 <AxelPolleres> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-dawg/2009AprJun/0379.html
14:35:18 <SimonS> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-dawg/2009AprJun/0379.html
14:35:35 <bglimm> AxelPolleres: I just pasted the relevant mail
14:35:37 <KjetilK> Zakim, mute me
14:35:37 <Zakim> KjetilK should now be muted
14:36:16 <kasei> +1 to the rewording
14:36:18 <bglimm> AndyS: I think the new wording is better
14:37:26 <bglimm> AxelPolleres: Is the rewording for the second part fine too?
14:37:31 <KjetilK> yes
14:37:35 <AlexPassant> +1
14:37:48 <bglimm> ... There is a second part to this
14:38:02 <bglimm> ... there was a concern that only the minor system is mentioned
14:38:21 <bglimm> ... I am not sure which systems implement UNSAID? I think only ARQ. 
14:38:27 <KjetilK> committed :-)
14:38:34 <kasei> I support UNSAID
14:38:56 <AxelPolleres> Orri: NOT EXISTS for SQL
14:39:17 <bglimm> ... we would need to rewrite it as NOT EXISTS in SQL syntax
14:39:40 <bglimm> AndyS: Are there any examples in the wiki pages?
14:39:48 <SimonS> http://www.w3.org/2009/sparql/wiki/Design:Negation
14:40:01 <SimonS> q+
14:40:10 <bglimm> AxelPolleres: I would like to see an example like the other one, expression the same thing as the other one
14:40:16 <AlexPassant> Zakim: ack me
14:40:19 <AlexPassant> q-
14:40:49 <AxelPolleres> ACTION: Orri to mail NOT EXISTS example.
14:40:49 <trackbot> Created ACTION-44 - Mail NOT EXISTS example. [on Orri Erling - due 2009-06-23].
14:40:49 <bglimm> Orri: I can mail an example
14:40:51 <kasei> the UNSAID example in the referenced email will work in RDF::Query as-is.
14:42:15 <AlexPassant> I was not actuall
14:42:16 <AxelPolleres> ack AlexPassant
14:42:18 <SimonS> Zakim, ack me
14:42:18 <Zakim> I see no one on the speaker queue
14:43:01 <bglimm> AxelPolleres: Orri will mal an example
14:43:10 <bglimm> Orri: I can do that now. 
14:43:22 <KjetilK> Zakim, unmute me
14:43:22 <Zakim> KjetilK should no longer be muted
14:43:34 <bglimm> AxelPolleres: kjetil or Alex can you adopt that in the document? 
14:43:42 <AxelPolleres> ACTION: adopt NOT EXISTS running example in F&R
14:43:42 <trackbot> Sorry, couldn't find user - adopt
14:44:05 <bglimm> ... where is Kasei's example?
14:44:05 <kasei> Zakim, unmute me
14:44:05 <Zakim> kasei should no longer be muted
14:44:20 <bglimm> Kasei: It's in the mail and in other places
14:44:41 <AxelPolleres> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-dawg/2009AprJun/0379.html
14:44:50 <kasei> Zakim, mute me
14:44:50 <Zakim> kasei should now be muted
14:44:58 <AxelPolleres> Kasei: UNSAID works with Kasei's implementation
14:45:00 <AndyS> http://www.w3.org/2009/sparql/wiki/Feature:Negation#Example
14:45:11 <AndyS> first example
14:45:34 <AxelPolleres> ACTION: Kjetil to adopt one more additional syntaxe UNSAID or NOT EXISTS for negation
14:45:35 <trackbot> Created ACTION-45 - Adopt one more additional syntaxe UNSAID or NOT EXISTS for negation [on Kjetil Kjernsmo - due 2009-06-23].
14:45:57 <bglimm> AxelPolleres: Until when can this be done?
14:46:06 <bglimm> kjetilK: I think immediately
14:46:29 <bglimm> AxelPolleres: If we have all these actions done, we need approval by two more people. 
14:46:57 <AndyS_> AndyS_ has joined #sparql
14:47:04 <bglimm> ... We can still propose to publish, given that these reviews are positive given that it is a draft
14:47:35 <bglimm> ... So I need two reviewers
14:47:52 <bglimm> ... Steve, when could you look over the documents?
14:47:59 <bglimm> SteveH: early next week
14:48:00 <kasei> (very loud typing noises... bglimm, is that you?)
14:48:15 <bglimm> AxelPolleres: Could anybody do that earlier.
14:48:29 <bglimm> Simon: I can also do that early next week
14:48:31 <AxelPolleres> ACTION: Simon to review F&R
14:48:31 <trackbot> Created ACTION-46 - Review F&R [on Simon Schenk - due 2009-06-23].
14:49:19 <bglimm> AxelPolleres: Kjetil can you incorporate the changes today after the meeting?
14:49:23 <bglimm> KjetilK: yes
14:49:39 <bglimm> AxelPolleres: So next week we can decide whether we can publish or not
14:49:56 <bglimm> ... is there anything more on F&R
14:50:24 <AxelPolleres> Postpone decision to next telecon (hopefully really ONLY the decision)
14:51:40 <AxelPolleres> ACTION: Axel to ask team contact  to approve patent text (currently commented in the document).
14:51:40 <trackbot> Created ACTION-47 - Ask team contact  to approve patent text (currently commented in the document). [on Axel Polleres - due 2009-06-23].
14:52:16 <bglimm> AxelPolleres: nothing else? No, so lets move on.
14:52:28 <bglimm> ... to Service Descriptions
14:52:33 <AxelPolleres> topic: service descriptions
14:52:34 <AxelPolleres> http://www.w3.org/2009/sparql/wiki/Feature:ServiceDescriptions
14:52:52 <KjetilK> Zakim, mute me
14:52:52 <Zakim> KjetilK should now be muted
14:52:52 <bglimm> ... last week two actions were completed on this
14:53:10 <kasei> Zakim, unmute me
14:53:10 <Zakim> kasei should no longer be muted
14:53:25 <bglimm> ... Greg, can you tell us what you did?
14:53:26 <AxelPolleres> http://www.w3.org/2009/sparql/track/actions/38 
14:53:35 <bglimm> Greg: I have posted a list on the wiki
14:53:48 <AxelPolleres> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-dawg/2009AprJun/0380.html
14:53:49 <bglimm> ... with things I suggest should be standardised
14:55:13 <AndyS> q+ to ask about SPARQL/1.0 (minor)
14:56:17 <AxelPolleres> ack AndyS
14:56:17 <Zakim> AndyS, you wanted to ask about SPARQL/1.0 (minor)
14:56:38 <bglimm> AndyS: we need to put the version number of the SPARQL features in
14:57:10 <AxelPolleres> q+ to ask whether default should be SPARQL 1.0
14:57:52 <AndyS> ack me
14:58:25 <bglimm> AxelPolleres: Can we have an assumption that SPARQL 1.0 is the default
14:58:31 <SimonS> Sounds like a chicken and egg problem: Need SPARQL/1.1 to say I am a SPARQL/1.0 endpoint
14:58:38 <SteveH> +1 to no defaulting
14:58:51 <bglimm> AndyS: I don't think. If the system does not say anything, then it is not supporting any particular version
14:59:10 <AxelPolleres> seems agreement that no default behavior should be assumed/defined.
14:59:38 <bglimm> ... Greg, do you have an example for the connection RI?
14:59:58 <AndyS> +1 to naming all built-ins with URIs.
14:59:59 <bglimm> Greg: for new features, such as aggregate functions, it makes sense to give them new URI's
15:00:36 <bglimm> ... at the moment we don't have URIs for all features
15:01:07 <bglimm> Greg: I think there was support for using URIs instead of keywords
15:01:29 <bglimm> AxelPolleres: should we have URIs for libraries or URIs for all features?
15:01:32 <AndyS> and that they should work as a function call.  Except BOUND, || and &&  which are  not strict  functions (they are technically special forms)
15:01:51 <bglimm> Greg: That might depend on the decision of whether or not we will have function libraries
15:02:02 <AndyS> Axel: do we want also to name libraries?
15:02:21 <AxelPolleres> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-dawg/2009AprJun/0380.html
15:02:26 <bglimm> AxelPolleres: We are running out of time, so we might have to contibnue this discussion on mail. 
15:02:49 <bglimm> ... I have to talk to Lee on how we proceed now and where we continue
15:03:14 <bglimm> ... whether we should focus on the features or whether we should flesh out the time allowed features in the F&R document
15:03:34 <bglimm> ... Any other things for the agenda? 
15:03:45 <Zakim> -[IPcaller]
15:03:46 <bglimm> ... No, so see you next week.
15:03:59 <AxelPolleres> Thanks all!
17:23:18 <Zakim> Zakim has left #sparql
# SPECIAL MARKER FOR CHATSYNC.  DO NOT EDIT THIS LINE OR BELOW.  SRCLINESUSED=00000353