From SPARQL Working Group
Revision as of 19:02, 8 March 2011 by Pgearon
Please justify/explain all edits to this page, in your "edit summary" text.
14:54:44 <RRSAgent> RRSAgent has joined #sparql 14:54:44 <RRSAgent> logging to http://www.w3.org/2011/03/08-sparql-irc 14:54:46 <trackbot> RRSAgent, make logs world 14:54:46 <Zakim> Zakim has joined #sparql 14:54:48 <trackbot> Zakim, this will be 77277 14:54:48 <Zakim> ok, trackbot; I see SW_(SPARQL)10:00AM scheduled to start in 6 minutes 14:54:49 <trackbot> Meeting: SPARQL Working Group Teleconference 14:54:49 <trackbot> Date: 08 March 2011 14:54:51 <LeeF> zakim, this will be SPARQL 14:54:51 <Zakim> ok, LeeF; I see SW_(SPARQL)10:00AM scheduled to start in 6 minutes 14:54:53 <LeeF> Chair: LeeF 14:55:02 <LeeF> Agenda: http://www.w3.org/2009/sparql/wiki/Agenda-2011-03-08 14:55:13 <Zakim> SW_(SPARQL)10:00AM has now started 14:55:17 <LeeF> Scribenick: pgearon 14:55:20 <Zakim> +??P7 14:55:25 <NickH> NickH has joined #sparql 14:55:54 <SteveH_> SteveH_ has joined #sparql 14:56:54 <NickH> Zakim, ??P7 is me 14:56:54 <Zakim> +NickH; got it 14:57:08 <NicoM> NicoM has joined #sparql 14:57:18 <Zakim> +LeeF 14:57:29 <Zakim> +[IPcaller] 14:57:36 <AndyS> zakim, IPCaller is me 14:57:36 <Zakim> +AndyS; got it 14:57:42 <Zakim> +NicoM 14:57:52 <Zakim> +kasei 14:58:43 <kasei> Zakim, mute me 14:58:43 <Zakim> kasei should now be muted 14:59:49 <Zakim> +[IPcaller] 14:59:52 <chimezie> chimezie has joined #sparql 14:59:57 <SteveH> Zakim, [IPcaller] is me 14:59:57 <Zakim> +SteveH; got it 15:00:10 <Zakim> +Sandro 15:00:20 <Zakim> +pgearon 15:00:27 <pgearon> hi 15:00:31 <MattPerry> MattPerry has joined #sparql 15:00:35 <LeeF> paul, are you ok to scribe today? 15:00:43 <pgearon> yes, I can scribe 15:00:46 <LeeF> thanks 15:00:48 <Zakim> + +1.216.368.aaaa 15:00:54 <chimezie> Zakim, +1.216.368.aaaa is me 15:00:54 <Zakim> +chimezie; got it 15:01:13 <Zakim> +MattPerry 15:01:43 <LeeF> zakim, who's on the phone? 15:01:43 <Zakim> On the phone I see NickH, LeeF, AndyS, NicoM, kasei (muted), SteveH, Sandro, pgearon, chimezie, MattPerry 15:02:25 <LeeF> topic: Admin 15:02:26 <LeeF> PROPOSED: Approve minutes at http://www.w3.org/2009/sparql/meeting/2011-03-01 15:03:02 <LeeF> RESOLVED: Approve minutes at http://www.w3.org/2009/sparql/meeting/2011-03-01 15:03:13 <LeeF> Next regular meeting: 2011-03-15 @ 14:00 UK / 10:00 EST (scribe: Andy S) NOTE DIFFERENT TIME FOR NON-US LOCATIONS 15:05:14 <bglimm> bglimm has joined #sparql 15:05:31 <LeeF> topic: To Last Call 15:06:33 <LeeF> bglimm, we are wondering if you intend to look at the formal section of SPARQL Query when you have a chance? 15:07:04 <pgearon> SteveH: Query in the same state as last time 15:07:12 <Zakim> +bglimm 15:07:25 <chimezie> Zakim, mute me 15:07:25 <Zakim> chimezie should now be muted 15:08:11 <pgearon> bglimm: will still have a look at the formal section soon 15:08:56 <pgearon> Not much happened. The main thing still outstanding is the BNode issue 15:09:11 <pgearon> If there's anything else that needs doing, then someone should point it out 15:09:32 <pgearon> I was under the impression that all outstanding issues were handled (except test data) 15:09:37 <kasei> right 15:10:18 <pgearon> for AndyS... That was a few weeks ago now, so my memory isn't clear, but I think so yes 15:11:04 <pgearon> LeeF: AndyS and kasei to be asked to review Update at their convenience 15:11:17 <bglimm> Zakim, mute me 15:11:17 <Zakim> bglimm should now be muted 15:11:58 <LeeF> http://www.w3.org/2009/sparql/docs/protocol-1.1/Overview2.xml 15:12:42 <pgearon> LeeF: some progress for "Protocol" 15:12:54 <kasei> Zakim, unmute me 15:12:54 <Zakim> kasei should no longer be muted 15:13:10 <pgearon> topic: Service Description 15:13:55 <LeeF> "Add link to discussion on empty graphs in the Update document (when such a section exists) " 15:14:47 <pgearon> for LeeF: no, I wasn't 15:15:34 <pgearon> kasei: service description describes dropping empty graphs 15:16:00 <pgearon> kasei: supporting empty graphs 15:16:11 <pgearon> LeeF: this needs to have some reference in the Update document 15:16:36 <LeeF> http://www.w3.org/2009/sparql/docs/update-1.1/Overview.xml#graphUpdate 15:17:21 <pgearon> kasei: Update doc describes dropping graphs. Not clear from this description if it describes supporting empty graphs 15:17:58 <pgearon> LeeF: Update may not need to say what is supported in a store. Service description can describe this 15:18:59 <LeeF> http://www.w3.org/2009/sparql/docs/service-description-1.1/xmlspec.xml#sd-emptygraphs 15:19:14 <LeeF> ACTION: Lee to propose text for SD document explaining 3.4.7 sd:EmptyGraphs 15:19:15 <trackbot> Created ACTION-406 - Propose text for SD document explaining 3.4.7 sd:EmptyGraphs [on Lee Feigenbaum - due 2011-03-15]. 15:19:43 <pgearon> In the DROP section I was trying to describe how a store would behave in the 2 situations: 1. supporting empty graphs. 2. Not recording empty graphs. I tried hard not to commit to saying what should/should not be supported 15:20:09 <LeeF> pgearon, thanks, I'll take a look at that too 15:20:28 <pgearon> kasei: would like someone to glance at conformance section for service description 15:21:16 <pgearon> kasei: conformance section says, "must include one triple". AndyS would like this to say, "must include at least one triple" 15:21:23 <LeeF> ACTION: Greg to change conformance section in SD to refer to including "at least" one triple... 15:21:23 <trackbot> Created ACTION-407 - Change conformance section in SD to refer to including "at least" one triple... [on Gregory Williams - due 2011-03-15]. 15:21:24 <SteveH> +1 to that 15:21:33 <LeeF> ACTION: Andy to look over current conformance section in service description modulo "at least" change from ACTION-407 15:21:33 <trackbot> Created ACTION-408 - Look over current conformance section in service description modulo "at least" change from ACTION-407 [on Andy Seaborne - due 2011-03-15]. 15:21:56 <pgearon> topic: HTTP protocol document 15:21:59 <kasei> Zakim, mute me 15:21:59 <Zakim> kasei should now be muted 15:22:11 <chimezie> Zakim, unmute me 15:22:11 <Zakim> chimezie should no longer be muted 15:22:57 <pgearon> LeeF: comments on relationship to service description. Also comment from Leigh Dodds with other operations that might be included 15:23:29 <pgearon> chimezie: Thinks that operations in POST are beyond scope, but we should have this discussion 15:23:47 <pgearon> LeeF: will come back to new operations 15:24:05 <pgearon> LeeF: SteveH still has pending review on this doc 15:24:18 <pgearon> LeeF: Entailment document 15:24:34 <bglimm> Zakim, unmute me 15:24:34 <Zakim> bglimm should no longer be muted 15:24:53 <pgearon> LeeF: received review from Jay. Should mark this off on Wiki page. Still waiting on review from Clark and Parsia 15:25:29 <pgearon> LeeF: to bglimm, should we discuss D-entailment today? 15:26:29 <pgearon> LeeF: JSON doc waiting for reviewers to have some time 15:26:33 <bglimm> I reminded C&P (talked o Hector) and he'll try to push Evren who is doing the review 15:26:36 <chimezie> Zakim, mute me 15:26:36 <Zakim> chimezie should now be muted 15:27:40 <pgearon> LeeF: can people please consider tests as we get closer to LC 15:28:17 <pgearon> LeeF: also need to review existing tests, as these have taken a back seat to editorial issues recently 15:28:19 <AndyS> 405 is done 15:28:34 <bglimm> I think I had one, which I completed, but can't remember what it was 15:28:42 <AndyS> .. that was 405. 15:28:50 <bglimm> I'll search for it 15:28:56 <LeeF> trackbot, close ACTION-405 15:28:57 <trackbot> ACTION-405 Draft xml for revised Extending BGP matching section for query closed 15:28:58 <kasei> LeeF, I've completed 396 and 403 15:28:59 <bglimm> Thans 15:29:07 <bglimm> s/Thans/Thanks/ 15:29:14 <LeeF> trackbot, close ACTION-396 15:29:14 <trackbot> ACTION-396 Contact chime on Dataset Update Protocol issue closed 15:29:28 <LeeF> trackbot, close ACTION-403 15:29:28 <trackbot> ACTION-403 Answer to http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-dawg/2011JanMar/0369.html with counterexample to JB-2 closed 15:29:37 <bglimm> 398 I also did 15:29:47 <bglimm> prepare test cases for approval 15:29:51 <LeeF> trackbot, close ACTION-398 15:29:51 <trackbot> ACTION-398 Prepare entailment tests for next week for approval closed 15:29:57 <bglimm> Axel looked at them too 15:30:06 <LeeF> topic: Blank nodes in DELETE templates 15:30:08 <pgearon> LeeF: Next topic. Blank nodes in DELETE templates 15:31:20 <pgearon> LeeF: resolution was for blank nodes to represent wildcards when deleting 15:31:39 <LeeF> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-dawg/2011JanMar/0409.html 15:31:44 <pgearon> LeeF: recently SteveH, AndyS, pgearon found issues around implementation 15:32:13 <SteveH> andy didn't capture my preference which was make it an error 15:32:14 <pgearon> LeeF: AndyS also did work on how to delete lists without this "shortcut" 15:32:31 <LeeF> PROPOSED: SPARQL 1.1 Update forbids blank nodes in DELETE templates 15:33:07 <SteveH> seconded 15:33:10 <bglimm> seconded 15:33:11 <pgearon> LeeF: does anyone have anything further to discuss on this, or serious concerns? 15:33:26 <LeeF> RESOLVED: SPARQL 1.1 Update forbids blank nodes in DELETE templates 15:33:43 <pgearon> Sure 15:34:00 <pgearon> I'll change it either way, but an action helps track it 15:34:02 <LeeF> ACTION: Paul to edit Update document to note that blank nodes in DELETE templates are an error 15:34:03 <trackbot> Created ACTION-409 - Edit Update document to note that blank nodes in DELETE templates are an error [on Paul Gearon - due 2011-03-15]. 15:34:20 <LeeF> topic: Dataset protocol & service description 15:35:14 <pgearon> LeeF: service description initially conceived as description of features and capabilities of endpoints supporting SPARQL protocol 15:35:45 <pgearon> LeeF: scope expanded to description of things like endpoint URLs 15:36:45 <pgearon> LeeF: do we need additions to service description to include dataset protocol. Preference is to not make large changes 15:36:49 <chimezie> Zakim, unmute me 15:36:49 <Zakim> chimezie should no longer be muted 15:37:15 <chimezie> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-dawg-comments/2011Feb/0013.html 15:37:19 <chimezie> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-dawg-comments/2011Jan/0029.html 15:37:23 <pgearon> chimezie: main comments are from Leigh Dodds and Rob Vesse 15:37:38 <pgearon> chimezie: Leigh wants to do GET/PUT on protocol 15:37:47 <LeeF> s/protocol/graph store 15:38:30 <LeeF> Leigh asks: how do you find the URL to POST new graphs to? 15:38:47 <pgearon> chimezie: Leigh has question on graph store being a dataset, but don't think it is 15:39:05 <LeeF> Leigh would also want to implement the dataset protocol without exposing SPARQL query or SPARQL update endpoints, but SD document assumes that you're talking about SPARQL protocol & not dataset protocol 15:39:20 <LeeF> Rob V says similar comments 15:40:01 <LeeF> Greg proposed including a RESTDataset class, but not more substantive changes at this time 15:40:06 <Zakim> -NickH 15:40:26 <LeeF> chimezie: there's currently an informative section in dataset protocol document talking about relationship with SD 15:40:33 <chimezie> sd:RESTDataset 15:40:33 <LeeF> ... could introduce vocabulary there 15:40:39 <chimezie> sd:defaultGraphStoreDescription 15:41:20 <kasei> I don't understand what sd:defaultGraphStoreDescription would mean. 15:41:26 <LeeF> http://www.w3.org/2009/sparql/docs/http-rdf-update/#http-option 15:41:39 <Zakim> +??P7 15:41:46 <NickH> Zakim, ??P7 is me 15:41:46 <Zakim> +NickH; got it 15:42:05 <LeeF> q+ to ask if it really needs to support update 15:42:44 <pgearon> chimezie: current relationship between services and dataset in the service desc doc 15:42:52 <chimezie> sd:defaultDatasetDescription 15:43:07 <pgearon> chimezie: can't reuse this term because the range is Dataset 15:43:09 <LeeF> the range of that term is sd:Dataset 15:43:25 <pgearon> chimezie: my understanding is that a graph store is not a dataset 15:43:28 <AndyS> q+ to talk about g-boxes and g-snaps 15:43:28 <kasei> Zakim, unmute me 15:43:30 <Zakim> kasei should no longer be muted 15:43:38 <pgearon> chimezie: new term would be the same thing, but relates service to a graph store instead 15:43:51 <pgearon> LeeF: do we need to define a graph store class? 15:44:35 <LeeF> chimezie: the object of the sd:defaultGraphStoreDescription would be the URL against which dataset protocol operations should be sent 15:44:52 <LeeF> kasei: but it's the dataset protocol, not the graph store protocol? 15:45:14 <sandro> q+ 15:46:01 <LeeF> what about sd:datasetProtocolLocation or something ? 15:46:02 <sandro> q+ to say I think a dataset can be mutable even if a graph isn't -- in changing it, you're changing what graphs are in it 15:46:15 <pgearon> chimezie: if we're going to say that a graph store is not a dataset then don't know if protocol or SD docs are the place to say that 15:46:25 <LeeF> ack AndyS 15:46:25 <Zakim> AndyS, you wanted to talk about g-boxes and g-snaps 15:47:23 <sandro> (but datasets in SPARQL *do* change, right?) 15:47:58 <kasei> isn't the dataset protocol about moving from one dataset to another? 15:48:05 <LeeF> sandro: don't all existing implementations of SPARQL 1.0 involve datasets changing? 15:48:41 <LeeF> AndyS: it's not the dataset which is changing, it's what the service is currently supporting that is changing 15:48:56 <LeeF> sandro: do people conceptualize this as replacing one dataset from another ? 15:49:06 <chimezie> thread on mutability of datasets and graphs: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-dawg-comments/2010Oct/0038.html 15:49:15 <LeeF> AndyS: not necessarily, but in the same way that people using a programming language think of sets as mutable, even though mathematical sets are immutable 15:49:27 <LeeF> sandro: wonder if treating datasets as a mutable structure is a simple way to deal with this ? 15:49:35 <LeeF> AndyS: we call the mutable structure a graph store 15:50:07 <LeeF> sandro: seems somewhat confusing to draw this distinction 15:50:15 <LeeF> AndyS: changing update document to remove term "graph store" would be a big change 15:51:22 <pgearon> AndyS: the slight trick is that we don't put datasets on the web. We put graphs on the web 15:51:37 <pgearon> AndyS: don't have a theory of datasets as computational objects 15:51:40 <Zakim> -bglimm 15:52:21 <kasei> q+ 15:52:25 <LeeF> AndyS: is it a dataset protocol? 15:52:38 <Zakim> + +41.86.528.aabb 15:52:47 <bglimm> Zakim, +41.86.528.aabb is me 15:52:47 <Zakim> +bglimm; got it 15:52:58 <bglimm> Zakim, mute me 15:52:58 <Zakim> bglimm should now be muted 15:53:19 <LeeF> ack kasei 15:53:25 <AndyS> q- 15:53:44 <LeeF> kasei: hesitant to split up definition of SD across multiple documents 15:53:57 <LeeF> ... there's a lot of value to having it contained to one document 15:54:28 <LeeF> kasei: would sd:defaultGraphStoreDescription be used in addition to sd:defaultDatasetDescription for services that implement both protocols? 15:54:35 <LeeF> chimezie: the name probably isn't great 15:54:47 <LeeF> chimezie: my intuition is that it would use both 15:54:51 <sandro> q- 15:55:45 <LeeF> kasei: i thought we accomplish this already by typing an existing dataset as a RESTDataset 15:56:18 <LeeF> chimezie: we don't have an explicit axiom saying a RESTDataset is disjoint from a Dataset, but there's an implication that they are disjoint, so it would be confusing to use them in that way 15:56:37 <LeeF> kasei: we may run into problems because people are not going to understand that they're disjoint 15:56:53 <LeeF> kasei: i think of one as a mutable version of the other, or an access point to move from one dataset to the next 15:57:28 <LeeF> chimezie: via Leigh's comments, the question is out there as to the relationship between a graph store and a dataset 16:00:29 <LeeF> q- 16:02:03 <NickH> is it decided if a GET to a SPARQL endpoint returns the service description? 16:02:15 <kasei> NickH, yes 16:02:30 <Zakim> -chimezie 16:02:32 <MattPerry> bye 16:02:33 <Zakim> -LeeF 16:02:37 <Zakim> -NicoM 16:02:40 <Zakim> -bglimm 16:02:42 <Zakim> -AndyS 16:02:43 <Zakim> -kasei 16:02:43 <Zakim> -MattPerry 16:02:45 <Zakim> -pgearon 16:02:49 <NickH> kasei: ok, thanks 16:02:54 <Zakim> -NickH 16:02:59 <Zakim> -SteveH 16:03:09 <LeeF> LeeF: With chair hat on, I'm very tempted to say that given resource and experience constraints, that SD is only about SPARQL protocol and is unrelated to the dataset protocol 16:03:38 <LeeF> NickH, yes, see http://www.w3.org/2009/sparql/docs/service-description-1.1/xmlspec.xml#accessing 16:03:55 <LeeF> pgearon, can you do the http://www.w3.org/2009/CommonScribe/panel/ magic to generate the minutes, please? 16:04:03 <pgearon> sure 16:04:07 <LeeF> many thanks 16:06:44 <NickH> LeeF: thanks, just checking if that has been confirmed # SPECIAL MARKER FOR CHATSYNC. DO NOT EDIT THIS LINE OR BELOW. SRCLINESUSED=00000244