Chatlog 2010-07-27

From SPARQL Working Group
Revision as of 15:10, 27 July 2010 by Apollere2 (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.

14:00:34 <RRSAgent> RRSAgent has joined #sparql
14:00:34 <RRSAgent> logging to http://www.w3.org/2010/07/27-sparql-irc
14:00:36 <Souri> Souri has joined #sparql
14:00:39 <LeeF> rrsagent, make logs world
14:00:41 <AxelPolleres> AxelPolleres has joined #sparql
14:00:52 <Zakim> +Sandro
14:01:05 <Zakim> +Souri
14:01:17 <Zakim> +MattPerry
14:01:28 <Zakim> +??P17
14:01:31 <Zakim> + +1.617.553.aaaa
14:01:36 <LeeF> zakim, aaaa is me
14:01:36 <Zakim> +LeeF; got it
14:01:45 <AxelPolleres> trackbot, start meeting
14:01:48 <trackbot> RRSAgent, make logs world
14:01:48 <NicholasH> zakim,  ??P17 is me
14:01:48 <Zakim> +NicholasH; got it
14:01:50 <trackbot> Zakim, this will be 77277
14:01:50 <Zakim> ok, trackbot; I see SW_(SPARQL)10:00AM scheduled to start now
14:01:51 <trackbot> Meeting: SPARQL Working Group Teleconference
14:01:51 <trackbot> Date: 27 July 2010
14:02:04 <sandro> zakim, this is sparql
14:02:04 <Zakim> ok, sandro; that matches SW_(SPARQL)10:00AM
14:02:10 <AxelPolleres> chair: Axel Polleres
14:02:35 <AxelPolleres> scribe: NicholasHumfrey
14:02:44 <AxelPolleres> scribenick: NicholasH
14:02:44 <AxelPolleres> regrets: Chimezie Ogbujie, Gregory Williams
14:02:48 <sandro> zakim, mute AndyS 
14:02:56 <pgearon_> I can't tell who I am
14:02:56 <AxelPolleres> agenda: http://www.w3.org/2009/sparql/wiki/Agenda-2010-07-27
14:02:57 <Zakim> AndyS should now be muted
14:03:16 <sandro> AndyS, you were the source of some wind/.breath noise.   I muted you for the moment.
14:03:23 <pgearon> pgearon has left #sparql
14:03:25 <AndyS> zakim, unmute me
14:03:35 <sandro> zakim, who is on the call?
14:03:36 <Zakim> AndyS should no longer be muted
14:03:45 <NicholasH> Axel: some disccussion on the mailing list and will be talking about the open ISSUES
14:03:46 <Zakim> On the phone I see AndyS, Sandro, Souri, MattPerry, NicholasH, LeeF, +1.540.412.aabb, AxelPolleres, +3539149aacc
14:03:50 <SteveH> is the uk line still down?
14:04:00 <AxelPolleres> PROPOSED: Approve minutes at http://www.w3.org/2009/sparql/meeting/2010-07-20
14:04:02 <NicholasH> SteveH: working for me
14:04:07 <pgearon_> Zakim, aabb is me
14:04:07 <Zakim> +pgearon_; got it
14:04:15 <AndyS> seconded
14:04:18 <sandro> SteveH, sorry, yeah, I think the UK line turns out to only have two circuits.   We're trying to provision more.
14:04:26 <SteveH> sandro, doh :(
14:04:32 <AxelPolleres> RESOLVED: Approve minutes at http://www.w3.org/2009/sparql/meeting/2010-07-20
14:04:33 <AndyS> two !!??!!
14:04:40 <ivan> zakim, dial ivan-voip
14:04:40 <Zakim> ok, ivan; the call is being made
14:04:41 <Zakim> +Ivan
14:04:56 <AlexPassant> Zakim: +353149aacc is me
14:05:03 <AlexPassant> Zakim, +353149aacc is me
14:05:06 <NicholasH> Axel: still some difficulties on the UK phone line
14:05:09 <Zakim> sorry, AlexPassant, I do not recognize a party named '+353149aacc'
14:05:15 <AlexPassant> Zakim, +3539149aacc is me
14:05:21 <AxelPolleres> sandro: we might switch providers for UK number again
14:05:22 <NicholasH> Axel: looking at chaning to a new provider due to there only being two phone lines
14:05:23 <Zakim> +AlexPassant; got it
14:05:42 <NicholasH> Axel: next regular meeting will be in one week
14:06:13 <AxelPolleres> don't miss the Update semantics call this friday
14:06:34 <AndyS> @16:00 WEST
14:06:40 <SteveH> Zakim, what's the phone number
14:06:40 <Zakim> I don't understand 'what's the phone number', SteveH
14:06:53 <NicholasH> Axel: looked through the issues lists and there are some old issues relating to Protocol that needs to be looked at
14:07:12 <AxelPolleres> lee, you there?
14:07:14 <NicholasH> Axel: anyone interested in a seperate phone call to disccuss them?
14:07:20 <AxelPolleres> Zakim, who is on the phone?
14:07:20 <Zakim> On the phone I see AndyS, Sandro, Souri, MattPerry, NicholasH, LeeF, pgearon_, AxelPolleres, AlexPassant, Ivan
14:07:45 <AndyS> Maybe better to start some material to discuss first ??
14:08:03 <AxelPolleres> ACTION: axel to evaluate with LEe necessity of protocol dedicated TC, and in case send out doodle poll
14:08:04 <trackbot> Created ACTION-284 - Evaluate with LEe necessity of protocol dedicated TC, and in case send out doodle poll [on Axel Polleres - due 2010-08-03].
14:08:12 <AndyS> Maybe better to start with some material to discuss first ?? even if just a reasonably complete issues list 
14:08:49 <AxelPolleres> topic: shortcuts in update
14:08:51 <NicholasH> Axel: look at issues that don't have an obvious issue and put them on the aggenda for seperate call
14:08:56 <Zakim> +[IPcaller]
14:09:03 <SteveH> Zakim, [IPcaller] is me
14:09:03 <Zakim> +SteveH; got it
14:09:42 <AxelPolleres> alex: suggestion for 3 for moving data between graphs (mv,cp, cat)
14:10:02 <AndyS> MOVE, COPY, ADD
14:10:49 <NicholasH> alex: will make it easier to teach
14:11:00 <AxelPolleres> alex: concerns raised, shortcuts for language not yet existing, increased learning curve ... I still think that these operations are so common that shortcuts are justified.
14:11:04 <AxelPolleres> q?
14:11:38 <NicholasH> axel: issues relating to the HTTP protocol document
14:12:06 <NicholasH> if we agree on the shortcuts then they should also be in the HTTP document
14:12:31 <NicholasH> should also be available for use with the semicolon operators
14:12:32 <SteveH> I think it's a bad idea
14:12:50 <AxelPolleres> ack SteveH
14:13:03 <NicholasH> SteveH: it is a new language, alsomost nobody is using it in nager
14:13:03 <LeeF> I feel pretty strongly about this, but I will not object
14:13:07 <AlexPassant> agreed on your 2 comments re. HTTP protocol + use of �[C;
14:13:18 <NicholasH> SteveH: we don't know what operations those verbs should map to
14:13:35 <NicholasH> SteveH: move could map to almost anything
14:13:51 <NicholasH> SteveH: can't guaranteee atomisity
14:14:06 <NicholasH> SteveH: syntactic sugar crazyness
14:14:20 <Souri> s/atomisity/atomicity/
14:15:03 <NicholasH> Axel: wouldn't not change anything, because we already have multiple statement problems
14:15:48 <AxelPolleres> SteveH: we introduce a new problem, because we could have engines that can deal with single statement requests atomically, but not the shortcuts
14:15:58 <NicholasH> SteveH: the shortcut could be an alias, so no guarantee of atomicity, confusing to users
14:16:01 <AlexPassant> SteveH: is your issue (besides atomicity) related to MOVE only or to the 3 proposals ?
14:16:47 <AndyS> My position has changed - 
14:17:00 <NicholasH> Alex: Steve and AndyS have concerns but not objections
14:17:37 <NicholasH> AndyS: initially I wasn't a support but not I think that it is intuative to what users want to do
14:17:47 <SteveH> MOVE is clearly not intuative
14:18:18 <NicholasH> AndyS: it is intuative to me
14:18:19 <ivan> s/intuative/intuitive/
14:18:19 <AlexPassant> SteveH: it's mapped to unix mv
14:19:16 <Souri> minor comment: Do we really need MOVE? or is it just a RENAME?
14:19:24 <SteveH> exactly
14:19:25 <NicholasH> Alex: it is not clear if people would object to it
14:19:28 <LeeF> exactly indeed
14:19:40 <LeeF> we don't know what we need because this language doesn't exist yet
14:19:42 <NicholasH> Alex: rename would have more support than move?
14:19:51 <AlexPassant> s/Alex/axel
14:19:57 <NicholasH> sorry :(
14:20:13 <LeeF> SteveH++++
14:20:19 <NicholasH> SteveH: language isn't old enough to need shortcuts
14:20:39 <NicholasH> SteveH: not know if it is needed yet. And can't change seantics in 12 months time
14:21:03 <NicholasH> Axel: too controversal right now
14:21:30 <NicholasH> Axel: put +1 if you are in favour of shortcuts, -1 if you are against
14:21:31 <SteveH> -1
14:21:31 <AxelPolleres> strawpoll, +1 for shortcuts, 0 neutral, -1 if against
14:21:32 <NicholasH> -1
14:21:36 <AxelPolleres> 0
14:21:37 <LeeF> Straw poll: Including MOVE, COPY, ADD shortcuts in update
14:21:46 <LeeF> -1 
14:21:47 <sandro> +1
14:21:47 <AndyS> +1 (for editors to draft some text)
14:21:51 <pgearon> 0
14:21:53 <ivan> 0
14:21:55 <MattPerry> -1
14:21:57 <Souri> 0.1
14:21:57 <AlexPassant> +1
14:22:56 <SteveH> there are other things I would prefer the update editors work on
14:23:03 <SteveH> given limited time
14:23:27 <SteveH> q+
14:23:35 <NicholasH> Axel: agrees that we would like to see other issues worked on more than shortcuts
14:23:50 <NicholasH> Axel: should prioritise other issues
14:24:18 <NicholasH> SteveH: reserve right to change his mind, if spec doesn't get published within 9 months
14:24:45 <NicholasH> SteveH: concern is that it is too soon to add
14:25:16 <AxelPolleres> ISSUE: Shall we add shortcuts for update as proposed in http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-dawg/2010JulSep/0053.html
14:25:16 <trackbot> Created ISSUE-59 - Shall we add shortcuts for update as proposed in http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-dawg/2010JulSep/0053.html ; please complete additional details at http://www.w3.org/2009/sparql/track/issues/59/edit .
14:25:19 <NicholasH> Axel: will open an issue to re-look at it later
14:25:28 <LeeF> ack SteveH
14:25:38 <NicholasH> Axel: thanks for the disussion
14:26:00 <NicholasH> Axel: made a summary of the issues
14:26:02 <AxelPolleres> topic: issues list
14:26:03 <AxelPolleres> http://www.w3.org/2009/sparql/track/issues/open
14:26:53 <LeeF> I saw Andy's latest mail and agree with it.
14:27:08 <NicholasH> Axel: There has been some disscussion on ISSUE-1 already
14:27:45 <NicholasH> Axel: should name it as an extension 
14:28:17 <AxelPolleres> ACTION: dig out results on previous discussion on ISSUE-1
14:28:17 <trackbot> Sorry, couldn't find user - dig
14:28:37 <NicholasH> Axel: next ISSUE-16
14:28:56 <NicholasH> Axel: had a lot of discussion at the last face-to-face
14:29:06 <NicholasH> Axel: left open to monitor it
14:30:15 <NicholasH> Axel: ISSUE-18 is strongly connected to the disccussion about atomicity and transactions 
14:30:38 <NicholasH> Axel: any implementation SHOULD guarantee atomicity
14:30:50 <AxelPolleres> ISSUE-26 Conjunction of operation vs atomocity, transactions
14:30:53 <pgearon> I believe that we've addressed several of issues for Update, but the issues have remained open
14:31:26 <AxelPolleres> PROPOSED: to close ISSUE-18 and ISSUE-26 with the insight that we require that any compliant implementation SHOULD treat every HTTP request atomically, and that we don't want to go any further in specifying transacionality and concurrency
14:31:59 <SteveH> +1
14:32:05 <pgearon> +1
14:32:06 <ivan> 1
14:32:09 <NicholasH> +1
14:32:10 <AxelPolleres> +!
14:32:16 <AxelPolleres> +1
14:32:18 <MattPerry> +1
14:32:23 <AlexPassant> +1
14:32:24 <AndyS> +1
14:32:28 <Souri> +1
14:32:38 <AxelPolleres> RESOLVED: to close ISSUE-18 and ISSUE-26 with the insight that we require that any compliant implementation SHOULD treat every HTTP request atomically, and that we don't want to go any further in specifying transacionality and concurrency
14:32:46 <AxelPolleres> close ISSUE-18
14:32:46 <trackbot> ISSUE-18 Concurrency in SPARQL/update closed
14:32:54 <AxelPolleres> close ISSUE-26
14:32:55 <trackbot> ISSUE-26 Conjunction of operation vs atomocity, transactions closed
14:33:13 <NicholasH> Axel: next ISSUE-19
14:33:30 <AxelPolleres> ISSUE-19 Security issues on SPARQL/UPdate
14:33:57 <pgearon> The current text is:  "Exposing RDF data for update creates many security issues which any deployment must be aware of, and consider the risks involved. This submission does not describe such issues."
14:34:14 <NicholasH> Axel: should there be a seperate section on Security?
14:34:19 <AndyS> c.f. http://www.w3.org/TR/rdf-sparql-query/#security
14:34:52 <AxelPolleres> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-dawg/2010JulSep/0141.html
14:35:16 <SteveH> -1 to being vague here
14:35:23 <SteveH> that doesn't sound like a good thing to do
14:35:31 <AlexPassant> proposal is "the specification does not address security concerns related to SPARQL/Update and that implementers and users MUST be aware of security concerns when allowing SPARQL/Update on their dataset"
14:35:33 <AxelPolleres> "the specification does not address security concerns related to SPARQL/Update and that implementers and users MUST be aware of security concerns when allowing SPARQL/Update on their dataset" from Alex' mail
14:35:33 <NicholasH> Axel: should not attempt to list all the secutiry issues, but should outline some of the high level problems
14:35:35 <AxelPolleres> q?
14:35:39 <SteveH> q+
14:35:46 <AlexPassant> SteveH: my concern is why mention issue X and not issue Y
14:36:10 <AlexPassant> q+
14:36:20 <SteveH> ack me
14:36:24 <NicholasH> SteveH: there are a number of very serious security issues which should be addressed, such as putting server in DMZ
14:36:48 <AxelPolleres> ack AlexPassant
14:37:00 <SteveH> we should mention all of them!
14:37:08 <NicholasH> Alex: my concern is that if you list some issues but not others, it might confuse people
14:37:39 <AndyS> Something like: "there are security issues, that include, but are not limited to, .... (some important ones) ..."
14:37:42 <NicholasH> Axel: just say "some issues include"
14:37:46 <AxelPolleres> Axel: we could say" issue include, but are not limited to"
14:37:50 <Souri> s/secutiry/security/
14:37:55 <pgearon> +q
14:38:14 <AndyS> .... and if you want something listed, you get to propose text.
14:38:14 <NicholasH> Axel: need someone to take an action to summarise these issues
14:38:30 <NicholasH> p
14:38:48 <NicholasH> pgearon: not trying to enumerate the issues but gives people a starting point
14:38:50 <SteveH> +1 to pgearon 
14:39:03 <AxelPolleres> Paul: a central section to collect issues in the draft may actually be a good idea.
14:39:23 <NicholasH> pgearon: in favour creating a security section
14:40:03 <NicholasH> pgearon: I am the Update editor, it should be me
14:40:16 <AxelPolleres> Action: Paul to collect update security issues and report back to mailinglist regarding ISSUE-19 
14:40:16 <trackbot> Created ACTION-285 - Collect update security issues and report back to mailinglist regarding ISSUE-19  [on Paul Gearon - due 2010-08-03].
14:40:51 <AxelPolleres> ISSUE-22 Support of SOAP/WSDL in protocol for SPARQL/Update
14:41:46 <NicholasH> Axel: think this issue just need closing after checking minor changes
14:41:58 <AxelPolleres> PROPOSED: to close ISSUE-22 with the understanding that SPARQL1.1 only standardizes HTTP bindings, and will specify these in WSDL2.0.
14:42:52 <NicholasH> AndyS: if it is defined in WSDL2, what is the difference between that and SOAP
14:43:33 <ivan> q+
14:43:41 <pgearon> q-
14:44:35 <NicholasH> ivan: What ever was defined for SOAP in SPARQL Query 1.0 will that be supported in SPARQL 1.1? (for query?)
14:45:24 <NicholasH> ivan: if am a user of SPARQL 1.0 with SOAP, will I still be able to do that in a years time?
14:45:57 <NicholasH> ivan: are we dropping a feature from SPARQL 1.0?
14:46:06 <AxelPolleres> ivan: are we chopping a feature of SPARQL1.0 here?
14:46:25 <AxelPolleres> ... and how large is the usage of SPARQL1.0 SOAP?
14:46:27 <pgearon> +q
14:46:46 <ivan> ack ivan 
14:47:02 <AlexPassant> should we poll the community re. SOAP ?
14:47:04 <AxelPolleres> lee, are you in a position to say somthing about the SOAP issue?
14:47:17 <NicholasH> pgearon: when this issue came up before, nobody on the working group was using the SOAP bindings
14:47:49 <NicholasH> LeeF: procedurally this has to go into the draft
14:47:59 <NicholasH> pgearon: should also ask on the mailing lists
14:48:14 <AxelPolleres> s/LeeF/sandro/
14:48:18 <pgearon> q-
14:48:25 <NicholasH> anyone who has a problem with this, please let us know
14:49:04 <ivan> q+
14:49:16 <AndyS> sec 5 : "Removed the section on SOAP bindings, and referred to other WSDL bindings in general"
14:49:21 <sandro> sandro: it should be a big, red, editor's note saying "Hey, we're dropping this because we think no one's using it.  If you are using it, please let us know!"
14:49:34 <AndyS> and some text mention of SOAP ... so to Sandro's Q: no.
14:50:50 <AxelPolleres> ACTION: LeeF add a note on dropping of SOAP binding to next WD of protocol11 and explicitly solicit feedback on usage of SOAP in SPARQL
14:50:50 <trackbot> Created ACTION-286 - Add a note on dropping of SOAP binding to next WD of protocol11 and explicitly solicit feedback on usage of SOAP in SPARQL [on Lee Feigenbaum - due 2010-08-03].
14:51:12 <ivan> [[[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. For each new feature, if there is doubt or a perceived problem with respect to this, the guideline should be to not include the feature in the set of additions.
14:51:13 <ivan> ]]
14:51:14 <AxelPolleres> leef, hope that's ok.
14:51:47 <NicholasH> ivan: sorry for going very formal. I want back to the charter. It doesn't not given clear text on if we are allowed to drop the SOAP binding, if you like it or not
14:52:29 <NicholasH> Axel: but we don't have to add update suppport for the SOAP bindings
14:53:05 <NicholasH> Axel: if the SPARQL protocol, says that just one of the other needs to be supported
14:53:29 <NicholasH> Axel: I don't think that the old spec says that both have to be supported
14:53:57 <NicholasH> Axel: I will add this to the protocol issue that we have for seperate telecon
14:54:17 <NicholasH> Axel: will keep this open for the moment
14:54:20 <AxelPolleres> we can't close this issue for now 
14:54:48 <NicholasH> ISSUE-23 Content negotiation/switch for mediatype
14:54:50 <AxelPolleres> ISSUE-23 Content negotiation/switch for mediatype
14:56:29 <NicholasH> Axel: could close this issue with the insight that the Content negotiation text in the protocol document is good enough
14:56:31 <AxelPolleres> PROPOSED: Close ISSUE-23 with the insight that the current content HTTP negotiation mechanism (as discussed in sparql11-protocol) is sufficient.
14:57:11 <AndyS> q+
14:57:18 <ivan> ack ivan
14:57:37 <LeeF> FYI I've explicitly sought SOAP experiences in the past and completely failed to find any
14:57:47 <NicholasH> AndyS: slight issue with the wording, we don't do Content negotiation, the HTTP protocol does
14:58:03 <AxelPolleres> PROPOSED: Close ISSUE-23 with the insight that  HTTP negotiation mechanism (as discussed in sparql11-protocol) is sufficient.
14:58:07 <AndyS> q-
14:58:17 <AndyS> seconded
14:58:22 <AxelPolleres> +1
14:58:24 <ivan> 0
14:58:25 <NicholasH> +1
14:58:35 <pgearon> +1
14:58:36 <ivan> +0
14:58:37 <pgearon> +1
14:58:59 <AxelPolleres> RESOLVED: Close ISSUE-23 with the insight that  HTTP negotiation mechanism (as discussed in sparql11-protocol) is sufficient.
14:59:08 <AxelPolleres> close ISSUE-23
14:59:08 <trackbot> ISSUE-23 Content negotiation/switch for mediatype closed
14:59:17 <Zakim> -LeeF
14:59:19 <ivan> zakim, drop me
14:59:19 <Zakim> Ivan is being disconnected
14:59:21 <Zakim> -Ivan
14:59:30 <Zakim> -Sandro
14:59:32 <Zakim> -pgearon_
14:59:32 <AxelPolleres> adjourned
14:59:33 <Zakim> -AlexPassant
14:59:36 <Zakim> -MattPerry
14:59:37 <AxelPolleres> (time's up)
14:59:38 <Zakim> -SteveH
14:59:42 <Zakim> -AndyS
14:59:48 <AndyS> ADJOURNED
14:59:49 <Zakim> -Souri
15:00:28 <AxelPolleres> reminder ... TC on Update formal semantics ... Fri 30th July 4pm UK time, 11am Eastern time
15:00:29 <Zakim> -NicholasH
15:00:32 <AxelPolleres> bye all
15:00:33 <NicholasH> wow, that was hard!
15:00:58 <AxelPolleres> Nicholas, thanks for scribing, I will take care ofpublishing the minutes!
15:01:14 <AxelPolleres> rrsagent, make records, public
15:01:14 <RRSAgent> I'm logging. I don't understand 'make records, public', AxelPolleres.  Try /msg RRSAgent help
15:01:25 <AxelPolleres> rrsagent, make records public
# SPECIAL MARKER FOR CHATSYNC.  DO NOT EDIT THIS LINE OR BELOW.  SRCLINESUSED=00000288