From SPARQL Working Group
Revision as of 15:06, 21 June 2011 by Apollere2
Please justify/explain all edits to this page, in your "edit summary" text.
13:54:27 <RRSAgent> RRSAgent has joined #sparql 13:54:27 <RRSAgent> logging to http://www.w3.org/2011/06/21-sparql-irc 13:54:29 <trackbot> RRSAgent, make logs world 13:54:29 <Zakim> Zakim has joined #sparql 13:54:31 <trackbot> Zakim, this will be 77277 13:54:31 <Zakim> ok, trackbot; I see SW_(SPARQL)10:00AM scheduled to start in 6 minutes 13:54:32 <trackbot> Meeting: SPARQL Working Group Teleconference 13:54:32 <trackbot> Date: 21 June 2011 13:55:30 <LeeF> zakim, this will be sparql 13:55:30 <Zakim> ok, LeeF; I see SW_(SPARQL)10:00AM scheduled to start in 5 minutes 13:55:55 <Zakim> SW_(SPARQL)10:00AM has now started 13:56:02 <Zakim> +LeeF 13:57:34 <Zakim> +kasei 13:59:58 <Zakim> +jess 14:00:05 <MattPerry> MattPerry has joined #sparql 14:00:05 <Zakim> +??P7 14:00:11 <cbuilara> zakim, ??P7 is me 14:00:11 <Zakim> +cbuilara; got it 14:00:25 <bglimm> Zakim, passcode? 14:00:25 <Zakim> the conference code is 77277 (tel:+1.617.761.6200 tel:+220.127.116.11.79.03 tel:+44.203.318.0479), bglimm 14:00:34 <Zakim> +??P11 14:00:40 <AndyS> zakim, ??P11 is me 14:00:40 <Zakim> +AndyS; got it 14:01:03 <Zakim> +MattPerry 14:01:11 <chimezie> chimezie has joined #sparql 14:01:12 <Zakim> + +44.186.528.aaaa 14:01:25 <bglimm> Zakim, +44.186.528.aaaa is me 14:01:25 <Zakim> +bglimm; got it 14:01:42 <bglimm> Zakim, mute me 14:01:42 <Zakim> bglimm should now be muted 14:01:44 <LeeF> zakim, who's here? 14:01:45 <Zakim> On the phone I see LeeF, kasei, jess, cbuilara, AndyS, MattPerry, bglimm (muted) 14:01:47 <Zakim> On IRC I see chimezie, MattPerry, Zakim, RRSAgent, cbuilara, Olivier, bglimm, LeeF, AndyS, SteveH, iv_an_ru_, ericP, sandro, trackbot, kasei, NickH, alepas 14:02:41 <LeeF> zakim, what number is jess? 14:02:53 <Zakim> I don't understand your question, LeeF. 14:02:58 <alex_> alex_ has joined #sparql 14:03:04 <LeeF> zakim, jess? 14:03:04 <Zakim> I don't understand your question, LeeF. 14:03:14 <Zakim> +Sandro 14:03:14 <axelpolleres> axelpolleres has joined #sparql 14:03:20 <kasei> 41# i think 14:03:27 <kasei> h for hand 14:03:32 <Olivier> 41# 14:03:51 <Zakim> +AxelPolleres 14:03:53 <bglimm> Zakim, handsup 14:03:53 <Zakim> I don't understand 'handsup', bglimm 14:03:54 <LeeF> zakim, jess is Olivier 14:03:54 <Zakim> +Olivier; got it 14:04:09 <chimezie> chimezie has joined #sparql 14:04:10 <axelpolleres> can take over scribing... 14:04:23 <LeeF> scribenick: axelpolleres 14:04:24 <axelpolleres> scribe: axelpolleres 14:04:27 <chimezie> zakim, code? 14:04:27 <Zakim> the conference code is 77277 (tel:+1.617.761.6200 tel:+18.104.22.168.79.03 tel:+44.203.318.0479), chimezie 14:04:27 <NickH> sorry, I can't attend today - in another meeting 14:04:30 <Zakim> + +3539149aabb 14:04:34 <LeeF> Regrets: NickH 14:04:36 <alex_> Zakim, +3539149aabb is me 14:04:36 <Zakim> +alex_; got it 14:04:49 <LeeF> zakim, mute axelpolleres 14:04:49 <Zakim> AxelPolleres should now be muted 14:05:03 <LeeF> topic: Admin 14:05:03 <Zakim> +chimezie 14:05:13 <LeeF> PROPOSED: Approve minutes from http://www.w3.org/2009/sparql/meeting/2011-06-14 14:05:28 <chimezie> Zakim, mute me 14:05:28 <Zakim> chimezie should now be muted 14:05:49 <LeeF> RESOLVED: Approve minutes from http://www.w3.org/2009/sparql/meeting/2011-06-14 14:06:13 <sandro> regrets for next two weeks 14:06:14 <bglimm> I can't 14:06:17 <LeeF> Next regular meeting: 2011-06-28 @ 15:00 UK / 10:00 EDT 14:06:25 <axelpolleres> at risk 14:06:30 <LeeF> Next regular meeting: 2011-06-28 @ 15:00 UK / 10:00 EDT, regrets from sandro and bglimm, axelpolleres at risk 14:06:32 <Olivier> at risk 14:07:07 <axelpolleres> topic: RDF WG resolution on plain literals 14:07:09 <Zakim> +pgearon 14:07:39 <pgearon> pgearon has joined #sparql 14:07:55 <axelpolleres> s/topic/main topic today/ 14:07:57 <axelpolleres> ok 14:07:58 <AndyS> s/plain/simple/ (rest of plain literals has not been decided) 14:08:02 <axelpolleres> topic: comments 14:08:17 <LeeF> http://www.w3.org/2009/sparql/wiki/Comments 14:08:25 <chimezie> lol 14:08:33 <LeeF> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-dawg-comments/2011Jun/0008.html 14:08:59 <axelpolleres> HK-3 is acxknowledged 14:09:27 <axelpolleres> KR-1 underway 14:09:32 <bglimm> I took ownership of AZ-1 14:09:51 <bglimm> Zakim, unmute me 14:09:51 <Zakim> bglimm should no longer be muted 14:10:05 <pgearon_> pgearon_ has joined #sparql 14:10:08 <sandro> (he) 14:10:26 <axelpolleres> ... not underway, draft response KR-1 stillempty, AZ-1 is incomplete, but underway. 14:10:51 <axelpolleres> Birte: is section reordering ok (requested by AZ-1)? 14:11:02 <axelpolleres> Lee: fully ok as editorial change 14:11:12 <axelpolleres> Birte: ok, content not affected. 14:11:28 <bglimm> Zakim, mute me 14:11:28 <Zakim> bglimm should now be muted 14:11:37 <kasei> I can, since it was based on a bug in my code :) 14:11:52 <axelpolleres> Lee: Kjetil submitted a test case. anybosdy willing to check it and add it to our test suite? 14:11:56 <kasei> can I get an ACTION for that? 14:12:15 <LeeF> ACTION: Greg to look at Kjetil's test case and incorporate it into the SPARQL WG test suite and email the group about it 14:12:15 <trackbot> Created ACTION-484 - Look at Kjetil's test case and incorporate it into the SPARQL WG test suite and email the group about it [on Gregory Williams - due 2011-06-28]. 14:13:05 <axelpolleres> I didnn't further elaborate on my suggestion, but anyways I am happy if Andy sends "as is" 14:13:47 <LeeF> http://www.w3.org/2009/sparql/track/actions/open?sort=due 14:15:00 <axelpolleres> topic:Actions 14:14:11 <axelpolleres> Axel: didn't manage to tackle the actions, sorry 14:14:26 <axelpolleres> ... (deadline was for next week) 14:15:07 <LeeF> close ACTION-482 14:15:07 <trackbot> ACTION-482 Update SERVICE test cases based on andy's feedback closed 14:15:29 <kasei> FWIW, i had intended my propsed syntax to be a conversation starting point, not necessarily the actual syntax... 14:17:44 <kasei> for example: <testX> mf:feature sparql:rand . 14:18:02 <axelpolleres> Lee: discussing annotation of test cases by features required. 14:18:39 <axelpolleres> topic: joint teleconf with RDF WG on terminology 14:18:48 <axelpolleres> Lee: will take place tomorrow 14:19:03 <LeeF> Wednesday, 22 June 2011 14:19:03 <LeeF> 10:00 US EDT (Boston), 15:00 BST (London), 16:00 CET (Amsterdam, Paris) 14:19:03 <LeeF> The call will use the Zakim bridge normally used for the RDF WG: 14:19:03 <LeeF> Dial +1-617-761-6200 or sip:firstname.lastname@example.org then conference code 73394# 14:19:03 <LeeF> IRC channel: #rdf-wg 14:19:14 <axelpolleres> ... the same timwe as our SPARQL call, but tmrw 14:19:34 <axelpolleres> ... get both WGs on the same page as for terminology. 14:19:58 <chimezie> will that have implications on our specs? 14:20:06 <chimezie> Zakim, unmute me 14:20:06 <Zakim> chimezie should no longer be muted 14:20:36 <axelpolleres> Lee: potentially has editorial effects on our specs, but don't expect substantive changes. 14:20:54 <axelpolleres> ... hopefully. 14:20:57 <chimezie> Zakim, mute me 14:20:57 <Zakim> chimezie should now be muted 14:21:28 <axelpolleres> topic: RDF WG resolution on plain literals 14:21:29 <LeeF> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-dawg/2011AprJun/0387.html 14:21:51 <LeeF> http://www.w3.org/2011/rdf-wg/wiki/StringLiterals/AbolishUntaggedPlain 14:22:54 <axelpolleres> bottomline proposal: simple literals will be abolished in abstract RDF syntax and in various concrete syntaxes simple literals will be parsed as string-typed literals. 14:23:16 <LeeF> SHOULD serialize as "foo" instead of as "foo"^^xsd:string 14:23:29 <axelpolleres> ... ie implicit typing to xsd:string. 14:24:13 <AndyS> Implications : http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-dawg/2011AprJun/0390.html (may not be complete) 14:24:18 <axelpolleres> Lee: tried to summarize how this affects us. 14:24:45 <pgearon> +q 14:24:55 <LeeF> q- h 14:24:58 <LeeF> ack pgearon 14:25:04 <axelpolleres> q+ 14:25:28 <axelpolleres> Paul: like the decision, but not clear about plain lits with language tags. 14:25:47 <axelpolleres> Lee: language tagged plain literals are not affected by that decision. 14:26:24 <kasei> q+ to talk about data matching triple patterns 14:26:25 <LeeF> ack axelpolleres 14:26:31 <axelpolleres> ... plain lits with lang tags still don't have a datatype (current state of affairs in RDF WG) 14:26:36 <axelpolleres> zakim, unmute me 14:26:36 <Zakim> AxelPolleres was not muted, axelpolleres 14:27:30 <bglimm> I actually wanted to check OWL because I think OWL has a different idea of plain literals, but didn't get round to do it 14:27:38 <LeeF> ack kasei 14:27:38 <Zakim> kasei, you wanted to talk about data matching triple patterns 14:28:13 <Zakim> -cbuilara 14:28:28 <axelpolleres> Greg: changes matching of triple patterns. 14:28:38 <AndyS> OWL+RIF will not see "foo@"^^rdf:plainLiteral, only "foo@lang"^^rdf:plainLiteral 14:28:47 <kasei> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-dawg/2011AprJun/0390.html 14:29:18 <axelpolleres> Axel: asking about RIF+OWL, but probably that's more concern of the RDF WG than ours here. 14:30:07 <LeeF> "foo" and "foo"^^xs:string will parse to the same abstract thing, and then match against that abstract thing 14:30:50 <LeeF> What if your data store is an RDF 1.0 data store that still has some things that are simple literals and others which are xs:string literals? 14:30:52 <axelpolleres> Lee: "foo" and "foo"^^xs:string in future will parse to the same 14:31:19 <AndyS> Specifically, has data already loaded (RDF 1.0) 14:31:20 <axelpolleres> ... we need tro consider bw-compatibility with RDF1.0 stores. 14:32:32 <axelpolleres> ... there is a migration problem. 14:33:06 <axelpolleres> Greg: if you only control the SPARQL processor, but not the store. 14:33:43 <axelpolleres> Lee: is this a blocking issue? 14:33:44 <Zakim> +??P29 14:33:53 <axelpolleres> Greg: no, just a hassle. 14:33:54 <cbuilara> zakim, ??P29 is me 14:33:54 <Zakim> +cbuilara; got it 14:34:22 <axelpolleres> q+ to ask whether we need to go back from LC for a change in this regard? 14:35:16 <axelpolleres> Andy: existing software can be affected, I'd like to understand what value it brings. 14:35:47 <axelpolleres> Lee: our customers don't want to bother about adding xs:string or not. 14:35:58 <Zakim> -Sandro 14:36:17 <Zakim> +Sandro 14:36:22 <sandro> (oops) 14:36:58 <LeeF> http://www.w3.org/TR/sparql11-query/ 14:38:03 <axelpolleres> Lee: functions most probably affected, talk about simple literals, etc. 14:38:19 <axelpolleres> ... need revising. 14:38:36 <LeeF> A < B simple literal simple literal 14:39:03 <axelpolleres> +1 that functions probably only need revising, remember we added cases explicitly for the distinction, so unifying might just simplify things in some places? 14:39:55 <axelpolleres> Lee: thought that we might not need to change anything here (jsut by referring to the RDF concepts... but looks like we definitly need to make changes here. 14:40:10 <axelpolleres> ... which will most probably trigger another LC. 14:40:24 <axelpolleres> Andy: It's a gray area. 14:40:40 <axelpolleres> ... we'd just remove simple literals. 14:41:08 <axelpolleres> Lee: in a sense we'd just remove a conformance criterion. 14:41:48 <axelpolleres> Andy: operator table itself ??? (didn't catch that, sorry) 14:42:51 <LeeF> http://www.w3.org/TR/sparql11-query/#func-str 14:42:52 <AndyS> operator table itself looks to be a set of natural changes, not automatic 2LC (IMHO) 14:43:14 <axelpolleres> ... we can't do too much here ATM until the final decision (?) 14:45:29 <axelpolleres> Andy: str is okayish, lang is potentially a problem 14:46:32 <axelpolleres> ... strlen as well. 14:47:30 <AndyS> s/strlen/strlang/ 14:47:36 <AndyS> and strdt() 14:47:40 <axelpolleres> Lee: I see that can be made worked, but how do we deal with the migration problem processwise? 14:48:57 <axelpolleres> Andy: OWL was held up by a similar issue? 14:49:31 <axelpolleres> Sandro: We can provide the text we need in our specs, and hope the others adopt it. 14:50:07 <axelpolleres> Andy: that'd be 2nd last call, wouldn't it? 14:50:35 <axelpolleres> Sandro: still don't understand how big of a change that is. 14:52:11 <axelpolleres> charter question... "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, except in the case of errata. " 14:52:51 <axelpolleres> q+ 14:53:04 <axelpolleres> Andy: impact on SPARQL update not clear 14:53:28 <axelpolleres> Lee: most on SPARQL query, transparent to SPARQL Update..? 14:53:46 <axelpolleres> Andy: I think I could come up with examples that make a difference. 14:54:07 <pgearon> +q 14:54:21 <LeeF> ack axelpolleres 14:54:22 <Zakim> axelpolleres, you wanted to ask whether we need to go back from LC for a change in this regard? and to 14:54:24 <axelpolleres> Lee: yes,. but that's not because of affected SPARQL Update text, but because of affects on SPARQL query (implicitly referred to) 14:56:40 <axelpolleres> Axel: apart from the 2nd LC call issue, the cleanest way to be true to our charter would be to make case distinctions between RDF1.0 and RDF1.1. 14:57:04 <LeeF> ack pgearon 14:57:20 <axelpolleres> Lee: that's a clean way, but we have to see whether that will work fo us. 14:58:28 <axelpolleres> zakim, mute me 14:58:39 <Zakim> AxelPolleres should now be muted 14:58:44 <LeeF> I think it's a clean way, but i think it's a lot of work for us to get it right so that SPARQL 1.1 is clearly defined against RDF 1.0 and Expected RDF 1.1 14:58:58 <axelpolleres> Paul: i see where you're coming from with your example for SPARQL update, but still unsure about whether that's all for SPARQL update (?) 15:00:14 <axelpolleres> the simplest, but dirty(?) way would be to refer to RDF1.0 only and then maybe produce a note or something towards the end on how to use SPARQL with RDF1.1 15:00:51 <axelpolleres> Paul: will write an email (on my concern) 15:01:14 <axelpolleres> Lee: ask myself what the world would loook like if we stick with RDF1.0 15:01:52 <axelpolleres> ... if we all agree with that SPARQL1.1 against RDF1.1 is obvious, maybe, we don't need to do anything. 15:02:00 <Zakim> -LeeF 15:02:00 <bglimm> bye 15:02:01 <chimezie> bye 15:02:02 <pgearon> thanks 15:02:02 <Zakim> -MattPerry 15:02:02 <MattPerry> bye 15:02:03 <axelpolleres> ... let's take it to email. 15:02:04 <Zakim> -alex_ 15:02:05 <Zakim> -chimezie 15:02:06 <alex_> bye 15:02:06 <Zakim> -bglimm 15:02:07 <axelpolleres> adjourned 15:02:07 <AndyS> ADJOURNED 15:02:07 <Zakim> -Sandro 15:02:08 <Zakim> -pgearon 15:02:09 <Zakim> -Olivier 15:02:09 <Zakim> -cbuilara 15:02:13 <Zakim> -kasei 15:02:15 <Zakim> -AndyS 15:02:20 <axelpolleres> rrsagent, make records public # SPECIAL MARKER FOR CHATSYNC. DO NOT EDIT THIS LINE OR BELOW. SRCLINESUSED=00000235