Chatlog 2010-08-03

From SPARQL Working Group
Revision as of 15:04, 3 August 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.

13:55:33 <RRSAgent> RRSAgent has joined #sparql
13:55:33 <RRSAgent> logging to http://www.w3.org/2010/08/03-sparql-irc
13:55:39 <Zakim> Zakim has joined #sparql
13:56:15 <LeeF> trackbot, start meeting
13:56:17 <trackbot> RRSAgent, make logs world
13:56:19 <trackbot> Zakim, this will be 77277
13:56:19 <Zakim> ok, trackbot; I see SW_(SPARQL)10:00AM scheduled to start in 4 minutes
13:56:20 <trackbot> Meeting: SPARQL Working Group Teleconference
13:56:20 <trackbot> Date: 03 August 2010
13:56:24 <LeeF> zakim, this will be SPARQL
13:56:24 <Zakim> ok, LeeF; I see SW_(SPARQL)10:00AM scheduled to start in 4 minutes
13:56:38 <LeeF> Chair: AxelPolleres
13:57:15 <MattPerry> MattPerry has joined #sparql
13:57:45 <AxelPolleres> agenda: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-dawg/2010JulSep/0168.html
13:58:32 <AxelPolleres> lee, ok for you to scribe?
13:58:36 <Zakim> SW_(SPARQL)10:00AM has now started
13:58:43 <Zakim> +[IPcaller]
13:58:45 <bglimm> bglimm has joined #sparql
13:58:51 <AndyS> zakim, [IPcaller] is me
13:58:51 <Zakim> +AndyS; got it
13:58:58 <bglimm> Zakim, passcode?
13:58:58 <Zakim> the conference code is 77277 (tel:+1.617.761.6200 tel:+33.4.26.46.79.03 tel:+44.203.318.0479), bglimm
13:59:17 <Zakim> +AxelPolleres
13:59:26 <Zakim> +kasei
13:59:30 <AxelPolleres> Zakim, who is on the phone?
13:59:30 <Zakim> On the phone I see AndyS, AxelPolleres, kasei
13:59:35 <Zakim> +Lee_Feigenbaum
13:59:37 <Zakim> +bglimm
13:59:45 <bglimm> Zakim, mute me
13:59:45 <Zakim> bglimm should now be muted
13:59:45 <kasei> Zakim, mute me
13:59:46 <Zakim> kasei should now be muted
13:59:51 <LeeF> AxelPolleres, ok
13:59:56 <LeeF> Scribenick: LeeF
14:00:04 <Zakim> +MattPerry
14:01:07 <AxelPolleres> regrets: sandro, chime
14:01:13 <LeeF> Agenda: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-dawg/2010JulSep/0168.html
14:01:51 <LeeF> AxelPolleres: Plan is to continue from last week's meeting
14:01:56 <LeeF> topic: Admin
14:02:04 <AxelPolleres> PROPOSED: Approve minutes at http://www.w3.org/2009/sparql/meeting/2010-07-27
14:02:34 <AxelPolleres> RESOLVED: Approve minutes at http://www.w3.org/2009/sparql/meeting/2010-07-27
14:02:56 <LeeF> topic: Update Formal Model Teleconference
14:03:23 <Zakim> +pgearon
14:03:35 <AxelPolleres> Lee: reporting on update conf call
14:04:21 <AxelPolleres> ... we sketched out some examples on update on graphstore.
14:04:28 <AxelPolleres> ... up to editors now to implement
14:04:42 <LeeF> LeeF: update call - consensus on definition of graph store state, operations as functions from graph store state to graph store state
14:04:48 <LeeF> topic: Admin (Revisited)
14:04:54 <kasei> regrets for next week
14:04:54 <LeeF> AxelPolleres: next call is one week from today, August 10
14:05:10 <LeeF> ... Olivier or Ivan next in line to scribe, followed by Axel
14:05:19 <AxelPolleres> Axel can scribe, if noone else will
14:05:32 <LeeF> topic: Comments
14:05:32 <AxelPolleres> http://www.w3.org/2009/sparql/wiki/Comments#WD_comments
14:05:51 <LeeF> AxelPolleres: two unaddressed comments
14:06:06 <LeeF> ... one is Jos's RIF comment - Chime is probably the owner of that comment
14:06:22 <AxelPolleres> chime implicit owneer on JB-1
14:06:39 <LeeF> ... will talk about that when Sandro and Chime are around
14:06:42 <AxelPolleres> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-dawg-comments/2010Aug/0003.html
14:06:45 <LeeF> ... other comment is Reto's recent comment
14:06:51 <LeeF> q+
14:07:02 <LeeF> AxelPolleres: this comment touches on several drafts
14:07:12 <LeeF> AxelPolleres: I will draft a response
14:07:13 <LeeF> q-
14:07:16 <AxelPolleres> RK-1
14:07:17 <AxelPolleres> ACTION: axel to draft response to RK-1
14:07:17 <trackbot> Created ACTION-287 - Draft response to RK-1 [on Axel Polleres - due 2010-08-10].
14:08:26 <LeeF> topic: test cases vocabulary
14:08:30 <AxelPolleres> topic: test case vocabulary
14:08:54 <AxelPolleres> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-dawg/2010JulSep/0117.html
14:09:02 <AxelPolleres> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-dawg/2010JulSep/0121.html
14:09:27 <AndyS> First link is wrong?
14:10:31 <LeeF> AxelPolleres: where do we want to add the entailment regime? 
14:10:39 <LeeF> ... then we need a URI for the graph
14:10:59 <AxelPolleres> sd:entailmentRegime 
14:11:05 <LeeF> ... if we use the SD entailment regime property then what is the subject of that?
14:11:24 <LeeF> ... if the graph itself then in one manifest file we would fix the entailment regime for a graph for all tests
14:11:30 <AndyS> zakim, who is on the phone?
14:11:30 <Zakim> On the phone I see AndyS, AxelPolleres, kasei (muted), Lee_Feigenbaum, bglimm (muted), MattPerry, pgearon
14:12:08 <LeeF> ... one proposal is to nest qt:data predicates 
14:12:15 <AxelPolleres> q?
14:12:25 <AndyS> q+
14:12:49 <Zakim> +Souri
14:12:58 <Souri> Souri has joined #sparql
14:13:13 <AndyS> q-
14:13:47 <AxelPolleres>           qt:data   [ qt:data <rdf01.ttl> ;
14:13:47 <AxelPolleres>                         sd:entailmentRegime ent:RDF ] ] ; 
14:13:51 <LeeF> q+ to ask why can't entailment tests have additional constructs
14:13:56 <AxelPolleres>           qt:data   [ owl:sameAs <rdf01.ttl> ;
14:13:57 <AxelPolleres>                         sd:entailmentRegime ent:RDF ] ] ; 
14:14:27 <AxelPolleres> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-dawg/2010JulSep/0121.html
14:14:30 <bglimm> But mine didn't allow for using different ent. regimes for different graphs
14:14:33 <LeeF>  qt:data <foo.ttl> ; qt:entailmentSetup [ qt:graph <foo.ttl> ; qt:regime ent:RDFS ]
14:14:47 <AndyS> what about:    [ qt:data <g> ; sd:entailmentRegime (<g> ent:RDF) ]
14:15:37 <LeeF> AndyS: what Lee and I are trying to get to is to talk about the data and then annotate it with the entailment info that should also apply
14:17:03 <LeeF> AndyS: We could go with Birte's setup where you have one entailment regime tested per query
14:17:44 <AndyS>  qt:worksOn [ qt:data <g> ; sd:entailmentRegime ent:RDFS ] 
14:18:50 <SteveH> SteveH has joined #sparql
14:19:08 <Souri> +1 to simple proposal => one entailment regime for the query
14:19:28 <bglimm> that would work for me
14:19:30 <bglimm> yes
14:19:35 <AndyS>  qt:graphWithEnt [ qt:withNameAs <g1> ; qt:data <g> ; sd:entailmentRegime ent:RDFS ] 
14:19:42 <AndyS> ... but simple is good.
14:20:16 <LeeF> AxelPolleres: go with simple for now
14:20:32 <Zakim> +Garlik
14:20:40 <SteveH> Zakim, Garlik is temporarily me
14:20:40 <Zakim> +SteveH; got it
14:20:42 <AxelPolleres> let's go with the simple proposal from Birte for now, for more complex ones I will try to capture Lee's proposal for more complex ones.
14:21:31 <LeeF> AxelPolleres: we need the ability to refer to different graphs with the same name to describe the state of the graph store before and after an update
14:22:26 <LeeF> AndyS: who's implemented these test cases?
14:22:30 <LeeF> (silence)
14:22:37 <LeeF> AndyS: getting to update soon, entailment later on
14:23:17 <bglimm> I hope to soon start with entailment tests
14:24:16 <chimezie> chimezie has joined #sparql
14:24:16 <AxelPolleres> ACTION: Axel to reintroduce extra vocabulary for graphstore to solve issue on named graphs in update test cases
14:24:16 <trackbot> Created ACTION-288 - Reintroduce extra vocabulary for graphstore to solve issue on named graphs in update test cases [on Axel Polleres - due 2010-08-10].
14:24:38 <chimezie> Zakim, what is the passcode?
14:24:38 <Zakim> the conference code is 77277 (tel:+1.617.761.6200 tel:+33.4.26.46.79.03 tel:+44.203.318.0479), chimezie
14:24:40 <LeeF> topic: issues
14:24:50 <LeeF> AxelPolleres: last time we ended with issue 23
14:24:53 <LeeF> ISSUE-30?
14:24:53 <trackbot> ISSUE-30 -- What RESTful update operations should be defined? -- open
14:24:53 <trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2009/sparql/track/issues/30
14:25:18 <Zakim> + +1.216.445.aaaa
14:25:30 <AxelPolleres> PROPOSED: close ISSUE-30 with the agreement that we will restrict ourselves to the operations mentioned in  the current draft http://www.w3.org/2009/sparql/docs/http-rdf-update/#graph-management
14:25:42 <chimezie> Zakim, +1.216.445.aaaa is me
14:25:42 <Zakim> +chimezie; got it
14:26:11 <LeeF> seconded
14:26:12 <AxelPolleres> +1
14:26:45 <LeeF> AndyS: what about PATCH?
14:26:48 <LeeF> AxelPolleres: it's mentioned informatively
14:26:50 <LeeF> AndyS: OK
14:27:03 <AxelPolleres> RESOLVED: close ISSUE-30 with the agreement that we will restrict ourselves to the operations mentioned in  the current draft http://www.w3.org/2009/sparql/docs/http-rdf-update/#graph-management
14:27:08 <AxelPolleres> close ISSUE-30
14:27:08 <trackbot> ISSUE-30 What RESTful update operations should be defined? closed
14:27:36 <AxelPolleres> ISSUE-33
14:27:36 <AxelPolleres> Can we use the correct meaning of the full slate of HTTP errors when specifying the update protocol via WSDL?
14:27:42 <LeeF> ISSUE-33?
14:27:42 <trackbot> ISSUE-33 -- Can we use the correct meaning of the full slate of HTTP errors when specifying the update protocol via WSDL? -- open
14:27:42 <trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2009/sparql/track/issues/33
14:28:56 <AxelPolleres> q?
14:29:03 <LeeF> q-
14:29:12 <chimezie> Zakim, mute me
14:29:12 <Zakim> chimezie should now be muted
14:29:17 <LeeF> ISSUE-35?
14:29:17 <trackbot> ISSUE-35 -- Can aggregate functions take DISTINCT as an argument a la SELECT COUNT(DISTINCT ?X)? -- open
14:29:17 <trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2009/sparql/track/issues/35
14:29:29 <AndyS> Yes.  Done.
14:29:38 <chimezie> Zakim, who is on the phone?
14:29:38 <Zakim> On the phone I see AndyS, AxelPolleres, kasei (muted), Lee_Feigenbaum, bglimm (muted), MattPerry, pgearon, Souri, SteveH, chimezie (muted)
14:29:49 <AxelPolleres> q?
14:30:28 <AxelPolleres> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-dawg/2010JulSep/0134.html
14:30:36 <SteveH> q+
14:30:41 <AxelPolleres>  SELECT COUNT(DISTINCT ?X) {…}
14:30:42 <AxelPolleres>   -->
14:30:42 <AxelPolleres>  SELECT COUNT(?X)
14:30:42 <AxelPolleres>   { SELECT DISTINCT ?X {…} } 
14:30:48 <Zakim> -SteveH
14:30:52 <SteveH> sorry, wrong button!
14:31:10 <kasei> what about COUNT(DISTINCT ?x) COUNT(?x)? very nasty subquery...?
14:31:20 <Zakim> +Garlik
14:31:28 <SteveH> Zakim, Garlik is temporarily me
14:31:28 <Zakim> +SteveH; got it
14:31:43 <Zakim> -SteveH
14:32:00 <Zakim> +Garlik
14:32:03 <SteveH> Zakim, Garlik is temporarily me
14:32:03 <Zakim> +SteveH; got it
14:32:06 <AxelPolleres> andy: it is already done and it's in the grammar
14:34:28 <SteveH> +1 to having it in there
14:35:15 <AxelPolleres> PROPOSED: Close ISSUE-35 with the understnading that all Aggregates can have DISTINCT
14:35:31 <LeeF> seconded
14:35:38 <SteveH> +1
14:35:50 <Souri> +1
14:35:53 <AxelPolleres> RESOLVED: Close ISSUE-35 with the understnading that all Aggregates can have DISTINCT
14:35:58 <AxelPolleres> close ISSUE-35
14:35:58 <trackbot> ISSUE-35 Can aggregate functions take DISTINCT as an argument a la SELECT COUNT(DISTINCT ?X)? closed
14:36:11 <LeeF> ISSUE-37?
14:36:12 <trackbot> ISSUE-37 -- How does basic federated query interact with SPARQL/Update? -- open
14:36:12 <trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2009/sparql/track/issues/37
14:36:23 <AxelPolleres> ISSUE-37
14:36:23 <AxelPolleres> How does basic federated query interact with SPARQL/Update?
14:36:38 <pgearon> that's an issue that mostly bothers SteveH. IIRC
14:36:53 <SteveH> sounds right
14:37:10 <AndyS> Last week: http://www.w3.org/2009/sparql/track/issues/18
14:37:49 <LeeF> AxelPolleres: do we need to say anything about the interaction of federated query with SPARQL Update?
14:38:15 <LeeF> ... SERVICE keyword in the WHERE clause does not seem to be a problem in terms of defining it
14:38:49 <pgearon> +q
14:38:50 <LeeF> ... are there any other issues here?
14:38:57 <AxelPolleres> q?
14:39:01 <SteveH> If that's the case it's al least worth a note in the update doc saying that it can have feedback effects
14:39:10 <AxelPolleres> ack steveH
14:39:34 <LeeF> ack pgearon
14:39:45 <LeeF> pgearon: I don't think it's a big issue but worth mentioning in the udpate document
14:40:42 <AxelPolleres> PROPOSED: close ISSUE-37 by adding a note to Update mentioning possible feedback effects
14:41:01 <SteveH> +1
14:41:01 <AndyS> If update requests are truly atomic, it's a bit of a non-effect (atomic being a somewhat of an ideal)
14:41:11 <pgearon> +1
14:41:19 <AndyS> +1
14:41:21 <SteveH> AndyS, not really, as the SERVICE request will happen inside a different context
14:41:34 <SteveH> but it's certainly possible to live with
14:41:42 <AxelPolleres> RESOLVED: close ISSUE-37 by adding a note to Update mentioning possible feedback effects
14:41:48 <AxelPolleres> close ISSUE-37
14:41:48 <trackbot> ISSUE-37 How does basic federated query interact with SPARQL/Update? closed
14:42:14 <AxelPolleres> ACTION: paul to add a note on possible feedback effects of federated queries in update
14:42:14 <trackbot> Created ACTION-289 - Add a note on possible feedback effects of federated queries in update [on Paul Gearon - due 2010-08-10].
14:42:27 <LeeF> ISSUE-39?
14:42:27 <trackbot> ISSUE-39 -- Can variable used as aliases for expressions be themselves used in other expressions? -- open
14:42:27 <trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2009/sparql/track/issues/39
14:42:42 <LeeF> already resolved as far as I know - can be used further to the right
14:42:53 <AndyS> agree with LeeF
14:42:59 <AxelPolleres> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-dawg/2010JanMar/0274.html
14:43:01 <bglimm> yes, I also remember that
14:43:16 <AxelPolleres> PROPOSED: Close ISSUE-39 with the insight that the current draft  handles that case in a clearly defined manner.
14:43:30 <LeeF> seconded
14:43:55 <AxelPolleres> RESOLVED: Close ISSUE-39 with the insight that the current draft  handles that case in a clearly defined manner.
14:44:02 <AxelPolleres> close ISSUE-39
14:44:02 <trackbot> ISSUE-39 Can variable used as aliases for expressions be themselves used in other expressions? closed
14:44:09 <LeeF> ISSUE-43?
14:44:09 <trackbot> ISSUE-43 -- should entailment-regimes be declared over the whole dataset or individual graphs? -- open
14:44:09 <trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2009/sparql/track/issues/43
14:44:27 <AxelPolleres> ISSUE-43 should entailment-regimes be declared over the whole dataset or individual graphs?
14:44:47 <LeeF> AxelPolleres: Not sure if we can close this - we haven't really fleshed something out for use cases for this
14:44:58 <AndyS> q+
14:45:02 <LeeF> ack AndyS
14:45:16 <LeeF> AndyS: the deployed systems I have can do queries over a mixture of entailments with different graphs
14:46:18 <pgearon> +1
14:46:26 <kasei> yes
14:46:27 <chimezie> +1
14:46:28 <bglimm> +1
14:46:40 <kasei> although the SD currently has a shortcut way of saying that one entailment applies to all the graphs
14:46:49 <AxelPolleres> strawpoll: close issue-43 by allowing differnt entailment regimes per graph
14:46:55 <AndyS> +1
14:47:40 <AxelPolleres> PROPOSED: close ISSUE-43 by allowing different entailment regimes per graph
14:48:01 <bglimm> yes
14:48:22 <AxelPolleres> PROPOSED: close ISSUE-43 by allowing different entailment regimes over different graphs
14:48:24 <kasei> q+ to ask if keeping sd:defaultEntailmentRegime is desirable (higher cost on SD consumers if we keep it I think)
14:48:29 <kasei> Zakim, unmute me
14:48:29 <Zakim> kasei should no longer be muted
14:48:47 <AndyS> +1 to kasei
14:48:51 <bglimm> Yes, I would still want it
14:49:15 <SteveH> even higher cost if your store has 1M graphs
14:49:36 <bglimm> Hm, at least it would spare me to write everywhere that we use OWL Direct Semantics, which is the only option for our system
14:50:38 <kasei> Zakim, mute me
14:50:38 <Zakim> kasei should now be muted
14:50:56 <AxelPolleres> RESOLVED: close ISSUE-43 by allowing different entailment regimes over different graphs
14:51:03 <AxelPolleres> close ISSUE-43
14:51:03 <trackbot> ISSUE-43 should entailment-regimes be declared over the whole dataset or individual graphs? closed
14:51:37 <AxelPolleres> axel: we seem to have agreement to keep sd:defaultEntailmentRegime
14:51:54 <AxelPolleres> ISSUE-44 Suitability of term "networked RDF knowledge"
14:51:55 <LeeF> ISSUE-44?
14:51:56 <trackbot> ISSUE-44 -- Suitability of term "networked RDF knowledge" -- open
14:51:56 <trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2009/sparql/track/issues/44
14:52:40 <AxelPolleres> PROPOSED: Close ISSUE-44 with the conclusion reached at http://www.w3.org/2009/sparql/meeting/2010-06-07#__22_Networked_RDF_Knowledge__22_
14:53:39 <LeeF> seconded
14:53:43 <bglimm> +1
14:53:46 <SteveH> ...reading
14:54:12 <AxelPolleres> RESOLVED: Close ISSUE-44 with the conclusion reached at http://www.w3.org/2009/sparql/meeting/2010-06-07#__22_Networked_RDF_Knowledge__22_
14:54:18 <AxelPolleres> close ISSUE-44
14:54:18 <trackbot> ISSUE-44 Suitability of term "networked RDF knowledge" closed
14:54:48 <LeeF> ISSUE-47?
14:54:48 <trackbot> ISSUE-47 -- Is MODIFY syntax required? -- open
14:54:48 <trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2009/sparql/track/issues/47
14:55:05 <AxelPolleres> ISSUE-47 Is MODIFY syntax required?
14:55:43 <AxelPolleres> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-dawg/2009OctDec/0385.html
14:56:30 <AxelPolleres> q?
14:56:34 <LeeF> Can we subjugate ISSUE-47 to ISSUE-59?
14:56:35 <pgearon> +q
14:56:37 <kasei> q-
14:57:04 <AndyS> The exact syntax has gone, the mechanism is still there.
14:58:17 <AxelPolleres> PROPOSED: close ISSUE-47 with the insight that MODIFY is no longer supported as per resolution http://www.w3.org/2009/sparql/meeting/2009-11-03#resolution_4
14:58:20 <Zakim> -MattPerry
14:58:45 <bglimm> +1
14:59:09 <AxelPolleres> RESOLVED: close ISSUE-47 with the insight that MODIFY is no longer supported as per resolution http://www.w3.org/2009/sparql/meeting/2009-11-03#resolution_4
14:59:17 <AxelPolleres> close ISSUE-47
14:59:17 <trackbot> ISSUE-47 Is MODIFY syntax required? closed
14:59:44 <Zakim> -chimezie
14:59:44 <bglimm> bye
14:59:45 <Zakim> -Souri
14:59:47 <AxelPolleres> adjourned
14:59:47 <Zakim> -bglimm
14:59:48 <Zakim> -pgearon
14:59:50 <Zakim> -SteveH
14:59:52 <Zakim> -kasei
14:59:54 <Zakim> -AndyS
14:59:59 <Zakim> -Lee_Feigenbaum
15:00:21 <kasei> AndyS, question about PP doc...?
15:00:44 <AxelPolleres> rrsagent, make records public
15:01:51 <AndyS> kasei, need to be a quick Q 
15:01:55 <AxelPolleres> summary: closed many issues, will continue at ISSUE-48 next time
15:02:07 <kasei> I see "A path of length zero connects a graph node to itself," but also in Defn of ZeroLengthPath "also any IRIs explicitly given as endpoints".
15:02:18 <kasei> graph node? or IRI? (what about literals?)
15:02:21 <AxelPolleres> rrsagent, make records public
# SPECIAL MARKER FOR CHATSYNC.  DO NOT EDIT THIS LINE OR BELOW.  SRCLINESUSED=00000293