Chatlog 2011-03-29

From SPARQL Working Group
Revision as of 19:46, 4 April 2011 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.

13:57:43 <RRSAgent> RRSAgent has joined #sparql
13:57:43 <RRSAgent> logging to
13:57:45 <trackbot> RRSAgent, make logs world
13:57:45 <Zakim> Zakim has joined #sparql
13:57:47 <trackbot> Zakim, this will be 77277
13:57:47 <Zakim> ok, trackbot; I see SW_(SPARQL)10:00AM scheduled to start in 3 minutes
13:57:48 <trackbot> Meeting: SPARQL Working Group Teleconference
13:57:48 <trackbot> Date: 29 March 2011
13:57:48 <LeeF> zakim, this will be SPARQL
13:57:48 <Zakim> ok, LeeF; I see SW_(SPARQL)10:00AM scheduled to start in 3 minutes
13:58:20 <LeeF> Regrets: Chime, NickH, sandro
13:58:23 <LeeF> Chair: LeeF
13:58:27 <bglimm> bglimm has joined #sparql
13:58:41 <LeeF> Agenda:
13:58:54 <Zakim> SW_(SPARQL)10:00AM has now started
13:58:56 <Zakim> +AxelPolleres
13:59:06 <Zakim> +[IPcaller]
13:59:08 <Zakim> +??P13
13:59:09 <Zakim> -??P13
13:59:09 <Zakim> +??P13
13:59:13 <cbuilara> zakim, IPcaller is me
13:59:13 <Zakim> +cbuilara; got it
13:59:31 <MattPerry> MattPerry has joined #sparql
13:59:43 <Zakim> +bglimm
13:59:45 <Zakim> +LeeF
13:59:46 <kasei> Zakim, ??P13 is me
13:59:46 <Zakim> +kasei; got it
13:59:52 <Zakim> +OlivierCorby
14:00:08 <SteveH__> SteveH__ has joined #sparql
14:00:10 <LeeF> scribenick: bglimm
14:00:28 <Zakim> +MattPerry
14:00:50 <Zakim> +??P21
14:00:58 <SteveH__> Zakim, ??P21 is me
14:00:58 <Zakim> +SteveH__; got it
14:01:06 <LeeF> zakim, who's on the phone?
14:01:06 <Zakim> On the phone I see AxelPolleres, kasei, cbuilara, bglimm, LeeF, OlivierCorby, MattPerry, SteveH__
14:01:56 <apassant> apassant has joined #sparql
14:02:35 <LeeF> topic: Admin
14:02:39 <LeeF> PROPOSED: Approve minutes at
14:02:41 <bglimm> Topic: Admin
14:02:53 <Zakim> +pgearon
14:03:00 <Zakim> + +539149aaaa
14:03:12 <apassant> Zakim, +539149aaaa is me
14:03:12 <Zakim> +apassant; got it
14:03:21 <LeeF> RESOLVED: Approve minutes at
14:03:26 <Zakim> +??P26
14:03:29 <LeeF> Next regular meeting: 2011-04-05 @ 15:00 UK / 10:00 EST (scribe: Axel or Alex) 
14:03:30 <AndyS> zakim, ??P26 is me
14:03:30 <Zakim> +AndyS; got it
14:04:17 <Souri> Souri has joined #sparql
14:04:27 <AxelPolleres> comments page should be up-to-date
14:04:34 <bglimm> LeeF: We have some comments, mostly under control
14:04:39 <LeeF>
14:04:47 <AxelPolleres> some are unasigned, still
14:05:03 <bglimm> ... maybe spend some tome on not in, in
14:05:13 <Zakim> +Souri_
14:05:55 <bglimm> .... SPARQL implementations currently have no understanding of datatypes, which can result in unintuitive results for comparissons
14:06:34 <bglimm> ... should SPARQL prescribe some understanding for core datatypes in comparrisson operators
14:06:45 <bglimm> ... Andy, Steve, should we look into that?
14:07:07 <bglimm> SteveH: Seems like an improvement, but not full understanding
14:08:13 <bglimm> AndyS: The comment is related to 1.0 stuff and not specific to 1.1
14:08:33 <AndyS> It will change a basic, unextended SPARQL 1.0 query processor.  (we should have done it last time but that makes it a change)
14:08:45 <bglimm> LeeF: Not much enthusiasm for this topic, so lets not spend too much time on it
14:09:08 <bglimm> AxelPolleres: We are mostly up-to-date
14:09:15 <SteveH> would be it be sufficient to recommend that SPARQL 1.1 processors should handle all the datatypes so that...
14:09:16 <LeeF>
14:09:17 <AndyS> While sensible, it's technically a change.   Not sure if its in the 1.0 test suite or not.
14:09:25 <SteveH> SHOULD or something
14:09:26 <bglimm> ... regarding the comments
14:10:38 <LeeF> topic: Last Call Status
14:10:49 <LeeF>
14:11:14 <bglimm> LeeF: Lets go through the documents and editors correct me if I am wrong with something
14:11:34 <bglimm> ... Query has still some editorial comments and aggregates algebra section
14:11:51 <bglimm> ... has still some things that can be improved
14:12:03 <bglimm> SteveH: Not much knew from me
14:12:24 <bglimm> AndyS: I did some changes for RDF merge and wait for Axel's second part of the review
14:12:46 <bglimm> LeeF: If I had some time, shoud I rather work on the protocoll or review query?
14:13:10 <bglimm> AndyS: We had already three reviews, so I think protocol is more important to get done
14:13:21 <Zakim> -AndyS
14:13:21 <bglimm> SteveH: Same from my side
14:13:51 <Zakim> +[IPcaller]
14:13:55 <AndyS> zakim, IPcaller is me 
14:13:55 <Zakim> +AndyS; got it
14:14:00 <kasei> was I meant to start that review yet? I thought I was waiting on somebody to ping me on that?
14:14:05 <bglimm> LeeF: Update had some work done regarding Axel's review, Andy's review is still to be addressed
14:14:31 <LeeF> kasei, ah, i did not realize that
14:14:52 <bglimm> AxelPolleres: There is nothing that cannot be resolved by us. Andy suggested some restructuring to make the distinction between the formal and informal part
14:15:01 <bglimm> ... that has not been done yet
14:15:31 <NicoM> NicoM has joined #sparql
14:15:34 <bglimm> .... I'll sync up with Paul and Alex for that. We are not too far from LC
14:15:45 <bglimm> LeeF: I think Greg can go ahead with his review
14:16:35 <bglimm> Axel: I worked in parallel to Axel, so now we have to resolve CVS conflicts and get an overview again
14:16:57 <bglimm> .... seems Axel has done a lot of stuff, so most might be addressed
14:17:13 <kasei> ok
14:17:15 <bglimm> AxelPolleres: Points that are open are marked in my email answer to Andy
14:17:17 <LeeF> kasei, thanks
14:17:34 <kasei> am out of the country now, but will try to review it soon
14:17:36 <bglimm> .... some things are left open because I wait for conirmation from Paul
14:17:55 <bglimm> LeeF: Protocol, nothing new, same for Service Descriptions
14:17:55 <kasei> correct
14:18:23 <bglimm> .... RDF Dataset/HTTP Protocol, we have to look at the name of the doc shortly
14:18:41 <bglimm> ... Kjetil's comments still have to be considered
14:19:42 <bglimm> bglimm: d-entailment updated for ent. regimes and section added for property paths
14:20:05 <LeeF> ACTION: Matt to look at new d-entailment text
14:20:05 <trackbot> Sorry, couldn't find user - Matt
14:20:08 <bglimm> LeeF: Matt, can you look at the D-Entailment section?
14:20:09 <LeeF> ACTION: Matthew to look at new d-entailment text
14:20:09 <trackbot> Created ACTION-422 - Look at new d-entailment text [on Matthew Perry - due 2011-04-05].
14:20:10 <bglimm> Matt: Yes
14:20:43 <bglimm> LeeF: Federated Query is waiting on Axel and myself to finish the review
14:20:49 <bglimm> .... other documents nothing new
14:20:58 <bglimm> ... Anything important for LC?
14:21:10 <LeeF> topic: Name of the RDF dataset protocol specification
14:21:12 <bglimm> (silence)
14:21:38 <bglimm> LeeF: We realised that the name might not be appropriate
14:22:03 <LeeF> PROPOSED: Rename the datset protocol to the SPARQL 1.1 Graph Store HTTP Protocol 
14:22:12 <bglimm> ... It is about managing graph stores. So we could change dataset to graph store 
14:22:19 <bglimm> ... Chime is ok with that
14:22:26 <bglimm> ... any objections to that change?
14:22:35 <AndyS> seconded
14:22:38 <NicoM> +1
14:22:40 <AxelPolleres> +1
14:22:40 <Souri> +1
14:22:52 <LeeF> RESOLVED: Rename the datset protocol to the SPARQL 1.1 Graph Store HTTP Protocol
14:23:05 <AxelPolleres> Note that we need to propagate this change to other docs referring to that one!
14:23:08 <LeeF> topic: tests
14:23:16 <AxelPolleres> q+
14:23:27 <LeeF> close ACTION-421
14:23:27 <trackbot> ACTION-421 Look through test cases and provide a summary by next TC closed
14:23:31 <bglimm> LeeF: Olivier looked through the test cases and where we stand
14:24:17 <kasei> I reference it in the SD doc
14:24:20 <kasei> will change
14:24:26 <bglimm> me too
14:24:27 <LeeF> AxelPolleres: we need to make sure that all other documents update the name of the http protocol document
14:25:01 <LeeF>
14:25:37 <bglimm> LeeF: Hope we can approve some tests
14:26:54 <bglimm> LeeF: Olivier ran the tests with his implementation 
14:27:19 <LeeF> Corese
14:27:19 <bglimm> .... two areas where we miss test cases
14:27:34 <AndyS> See  ARQ gets:   Tests = 332 : Successes = 298 : Errors = 9 : Failures = 25
14:27:47 <bglimm> ... for the IF function and scoping? for zero length paths
14:28:12 <bglimm> LeeF: AndyS, can we get that covered
14:28:24 <bglimm> AndyS: I was hoping for WG support for this
14:28:58 <bglimm> LeeF: Matt, would you mind to come up with a test that covers the missing property path features?
14:29:05 <LeeF> ACTION: Matthew to include a test on nodes in path of length zero come from specified named graph (e.g. graph <g1> {?x <p>* ?y})
14:29:05 <trackbot> Created ACTION-423 - Include a test on nodes in path of length zero come from specified named graph (e.g. graph <g1> {?x <p>* ?y}) [on Matthew Perry - due 2011-04-05].
14:29:06 <bglimm> Matt: I can do that
14:29:17 <LeeF> ACTION: Lee to follow-up and make sure we get IF() tests 
14:29:17 <trackbot> Created ACTION-424 - Follow-up and make sure we get IF() tests  [on Lee Feigenbaum - due 2011-04-05].
14:29:40 <bglimm> LeeF: We still have some empty directories
14:31:02 <bglimm> ... I fixed the manifest now. 
14:31:24 <bglimm> ... Olivier picked up on negative syntax tests, should we keep these types?
14:31:46 <bglimm> ... Do we have similar types for the positive tests?
14:32:10 <bglimm> ... Any opinions?
14:32:14 <bglimm> (silence)
14:32:18 <kasei> is it in a different namespace?
14:32:23 <kasei> the new 1.1 namespace?
14:32:30 <LeeF>  mf:NegativeSyntaxTest
14:32:30 <LeeF>  mf:NegativeSyntaxTest11
14:32:30 <LeeF>  mf:NegativeUpdateSyntaxTest11
14:32:39 <kasei> mf is the old dawg namespace, then?
14:32:42 <Zakim> -apassant
14:32:53 <Zakim> -cbuilara
14:32:59 <LeeF> @prefix mf:     <> .
14:33:06 <kasei> if it's the same namespace, I'd prefer keeping the '11'
14:33:35 <bglimm> AndyS: I suggest the negative syntax tests without 1.1 should be changed
14:34:05 <Zakim> +NicoM
14:34:07 <Zakim> +[IPcaller]
14:34:08 <bglimm> LeeF: Should we move all syntax tests into one directory?
14:34:09 <AxelPolleres> I didn't add those classes yet, I am afraid (the ones with 11)
14:34:14 <cbuilara> Zakim, IPcaller is me
14:34:14 <Zakim> +cbuilara; got it
14:34:19 <Zakim> + +3539149aabb
14:34:29 <apassant> Zakim, +3539149aabb is me
14:34:29 <Zakim> +apassant; got it
14:34:33 <AxelPolleres> q+
14:34:39 <LeeF> ack AxelPolleres
14:34:46 <bglimm> AndyS: The syntax tests should have coverage even if hey are scattared in different directories
14:35:21 <bglimm> AxelPolleres: Do we need NegativeSyntaxTest11 and NegativeUpdateSyntaxTest11?
14:35:32 <kasei> think it needs to either be just negativesyntaxtest11 or be explicit by changing NegativeSyntaxTest to NegativeQuerySyntaxTest
14:35:39 <kasei> prefer the latter
14:35:42 <bglimm> .... Is that not clear from the fact that the test is an update test or a query test?
14:35:52 <bglimm> AndyS: I find it clearer the way it is.
14:36:08 <bglimm> AxelPolleres: Do we need the same for PositiveSyntax...Test?
14:36:16 <bglimm> AndyS: I think we have that already.
14:36:34 <bglimm> .... Yes, and that's the only way to distinguish them, so we have to keep it
14:37:10 <AxelPolleres> I need an action to add those new types to mf: and to README.html
14:37:12 <bglimm> AndyS: For the syntax tests the type is important to distinguish them
14:37:35 <bglimm> LeeF: The ones in Aggregates without the 11 have to be updated. I'll do that now
14:38:20 <AxelPolleres> ACTION: Axel to add those new types to mf: and to README.html
14:38:20 <trackbot> Created ACTION-425 - Add those new types to mf: and to README.html [on Axel Polleres - due 2011-04-05].
14:38:58 <AxelPolleres>  ... new types: Positive/NegativeSyntaxTest11 and Positive/NegativeUpdateSyntaxTest11 yes?
14:39:01 <bglimm> LeeF: Do you know whether that is the only place?
14:39:06 <bglimm> AndyS: Yes.
14:39:14 <bglimm> LeeF: Ok, then I updated that
14:40:56 <LeeF> ACTION: Andy to change the @prefix : prefix in the syntax directories to use an absolute URI
14:40:56 <trackbot> Created ACTION-426 - Change the @prefix : prefix in the syntax directories to use an absolute URI [on Andy Seaborne - due 2011-04-05].
14:41:39 <AxelPolleres> q+
14:41:57 <LeeF> ack AxelPolleres
14:41:59 <bglimm> LeeF: We are not consistent in the update tests for specifying the data
14:42:18 <bglimm> AxelPolleres: We don't really need new types for the query evaluation tests
14:42:23 <AxelPolleres> :QueryEvaluationTest vs :QueryEvaluationTest11 ?
14:43:01 <bglimm> AndyS: We make sure that when you execute the test suite, you do 1.1.
14:43:13 <LeeF>  ut:graphData [ ut:graph
14:43:13 <LeeF>  ut:graphData [ ut:data
14:43:25 <bglimm> LeeF: ut:data vs. ut:graph, which one should be used?
14:44:20 <bglimm> AxelPolleres: data is just for the default graph
14:44:59 <bglimm> LeeF:  Is the second of my example incorrect?
14:45:02 <AxelPolleres>
14:45:55 <LeeF> ACTION: Lee to clean up occurrences of ut:graphData [ ut:data 
14:45:55 <trackbot> Created ACTION-427 - Clean up occurrences of ut:graphData [ ut:data  [on Lee Feigenbaum - due 2011-04-05].
14:46:24 <bglimm> LeeF: extra prefixes don't harm, could be cleaned up
14:46:32 <bglimm> ... same for duplicate tests
14:47:07 <bglimm> ... delete/insert, we know about the blank node in the template issue
14:47:16 <bglimm> ... should now be a negative syntax test
14:47:33 <LeeF> ACTION: Lee to fix the delete-insert queries that should be negative syntax tests in delete-insert 
14:47:33 <trackbot> Created ACTION-428 - Fix the delete-insert queries that should be negative syntax tests in delete-insert  [on Lee Feigenbaum - due 2011-04-05].
14:48:21 <bglimm> LeeF: Olivier identified six ent. test cases that have a mistake
14:48:27 <bglimm> bglimm: I'll check that
14:49:03 <bglimm> LeeF: Axel, Olivier had some  comments for the readMe document, can you address those?
14:49:19 <AxelPolleres> ACTION: Axel to ckeck Olivier's comments on the test cases README.html
14:49:19 <trackbot> Created ACTION-429 - Ckeck Olivier's comments on the test cases README.html [on Axel Polleres - due 2011-04-05].
14:50:05 <bglimm> LeeF: We have several successful implementations for property paths that path the property path tests
14:50:19 <bglimm> ... AndyS, have you run those tests?
14:50:28 <bglimm> AndyS: Yes, there are 30 tests and I have run them
14:50:32 <AndyS>   Tests = 30 : Successes = 30 : Errors = 0 : Failures = 0
14:51:09 <LeeF> PROPOSED: Approve the 30 tests in the property-path directory 
14:51:10 <AndyS> (error means bad test setup e.g. data syntax wrong ; failure means different results)
14:51:22 <kasei> +1
14:51:24 <AndyS> seconded
14:51:30 <OlivierCorby> +1
14:51:34 <LeeF> RESOLVED: Approve the 30 tests in the property-path directory 
14:51:42 <LeeF> ACTION: Lee to mark 30 prop path tests approved today
14:51:43 <trackbot> Created ACTION-430 - Mark 30 prop path tests approved today [on Lee Feigenbaum - due 2011-04-05].
14:52:06 <bglimm> LeeF: I wanted to look at the negative syntax tests
14:53:12 <bglimm> ... bad01 to bad03, they don't have update opertions, AndyS suggests we make that legal, so the tests are no longer negative tests
14:53:27 <bglimm> ... can be useful in some applications
14:53:45 <kasei> I'm hesitant, but no strong feelings
14:54:05 <bglimm> ... Paul, Alex, any implications for the upate spec?
14:54:21 <bglimm> Paul (?): I think that wouldn't be a big change.
14:54:39 <bglimm> LeeF: Are you indifferent, in favour, or against that?
14:54:57 <bglimm> Paul (?): I don't have strong feeling, but seems ok
14:55:30 <bglimm> LeeF: I don't see it doing harm and seems easy
14:55:44 <bglimm> AndyS: Changes the grammar
14:56:00 <bglimm> .. the grammar is in the query doc even for update
14:56:06 <LeeF> ACTION: Andy to change update grammar to allow zero-operation update requests
14:56:06 <trackbot> Created ACTION-431 - Change update grammar to allow zero-operation update requests [on Andy Seaborne - due 2011-04-05].
14:57:03 <bglimm> AxelPolleres: AndyS, for INSERT DATA and DELETE DATA, we do have quads there now. Is that intended?
14:57:19 <bglimm> AndyS: That is unrelated to zero operation deletes
14:57:25 <bglimm> AxelPolleres: Yes
14:57:42 <bglimm> AndyS: There is a note that says that there are no variables
14:57:50 <LeeF> PROPOSED: Approve tests in syntax-update-1 except for *bad-0{1,2,3}.ru 
14:57:54 <bglimm> ... that's in 19.8
14:58:31 <LeeF> Let's take up all the syntax tests next time
14:58:35 <bglimm> AndyS: I can do the prefix update first and then approve the tests next week
14:58:45 <LeeF> Adjourned. 
15:00:17 <Zakim> SW_(SPARQL)10:00AM has ended
15:00:19 <Zakim> Attendees were AxelPolleres, cbuilara, bglimm, LeeF, kasei, OlivierCorby, MattPerry, SteveH__, pgearon, apassant, AndyS, Souri_, NicoM