From SPARQL Working Group
Revision as of 16:32, 27 September 2011 by Cbuilara
Please justify/explain all edits to this page, in your "edit summary" text.
13:57:40 <RRSAgent> RRSAgent has joined #sparql 13:57:40 <RRSAgent> logging to http://www.w3.org/2011/09/27-sparql-irc 13:57:49 <AndyS> zakim, this is SPARQL 13:57:49 <Zakim> AndyS, I see SW_(SPARQL)10:00AM in the schedule but not yet started. Perhaps you mean "this will be SPARQL". 13:57:56 <AndyS> zakim, this will be SPARQL 13:57:56 <Zakim> ok, AndyS; I see SW_(SPARQL)10:00AM scheduled to start in 3 minutes 13:58:13 <LeeF> trackbot, start meeting 13:58:15 <trackbot> RRSAgent, make logs world 13:58:17 <trackbot> Zakim, this will be 77277 13:58:17 <Zakim> ok, trackbot; I see SW_(SPARQL)10:00AM scheduled to start in 2 minutes 13:58:18 <trackbot> Meeting: SPARQL Working Group Teleconference 13:58:18 <trackbot> Date: 27 September 2011 13:58:27 <LeeF> zakim, this will be SPARQL 13:58:27 <Zakim> ok, LeeF; I see SW_(SPARQL)10:00AM scheduled to start in 2 minutes 13:58:45 <swh> swh has joined #sparql 13:58:54 <Zakim> SW_(SPARQL)10:00AM has now started 13:59:01 <Zakim> +??P3 13:59:05 <AndyS> zakim, ??P3 is me 13:59:05 <Zakim> +AndyS; got it 13:59:10 <Zakim> + +1.310.729.aaaa 13:59:16 <kasei> Zakim, aaaa is me 13:59:16 <Zakim> +kasei; got it 13:59:49 <mperry> mperry has joined #sparql 13:59:56 <Zakim> +??P7 14:00:01 <cbuilara> zakim, ??P7 is me 14:00:01 <Zakim> +cbuilara; got it 14:00:02 <Zakim> + +1.617.553.aabb 14:00:07 <LeeF> zakim, aabb is me 14:00:07 <Zakim> +LeeF; got it 14:00:12 <LeeF> Chair: LeeF 14:00:14 <Zakim> +Bert 14:00:16 <LeeF> Agenda: http://www.w3.org/2009/sparql/wiki/Agenda-2011-09-27 14:00:35 <Zakim> + +1.603.897.aacc 14:00:46 <LeeF> zakim, Bert is Olivier 14:00:46 <Zakim> +Olivier; got it 14:00:47 <mperry> zakim, aacc is me 14:00:48 <Zakim> +mperry; got it 14:00:52 <LeeF> zakim, who's on the phone? 14:00:52 <Zakim> On the phone I see AndyS, kasei, cbuilara, LeeF, Olivier, mperry 14:01:25 <LeeF> Scribenick: cbuilara 14:02:26 <cbuilara> zakim, mute me 14:02:26 <Zakim> cbuilara should now be muted 14:02:29 <LeeF> topic: Admin 14:02:39 <LeeF> PROPOSED: Approve minutes at http://www.w3.org/2009/sparql/meeting/2011-09-20 14:03:13 <Zakim> +pgearon 14:03:23 <LeeF> RESOLVED: Approve minutes at http://www.w3.org/2009/sparql/meeting/2011-09-20 14:03:23 <AxelPolleres> AxelPolleres has joined #sparql 14:03:27 <chimezie> chimezie has joined #sparql 14:03:36 <LeeF> Next regular meeting: 2011-10-04 @ 15:00 UK / 10:00 EST (scribe: Sandro? ) 14:04:10 <Zakim> + +1.216.368.aadd 14:04:11 <cbuilara> LeeF: Andy, anything from the RDF-WG? 14:04:21 <chimezie> Zakim, 1.216.368.aadd is me 14:04:22 <Zakim> sorry, chimezie, I do not recognize a party named '1.216.368.aadd' 14:04:29 <cbuilara> AndyS: no, nothing new 14:04:30 <chimezie> Zakim, +1.216.368.aadd is me 14:04:30 <Zakim> +chimezie; got it 14:04:57 <cbuilara> AndyS: in the next f2f meeting probably we will push the job 14:05:02 <LeeF> topic: publication status 14:05:12 <chimezie> Zakim, mute me 14:05:12 <Zakim> chimezie should now be muted 14:05:21 <LeeF> AxelPolleres, any news on overview document? 14:05:53 <AxelPolleres> no news on overview, hope to find an evening this week where I can finish it. 14:05:58 <cbuilara> LeeF: Fed query, still trying to finish issues from Greg, anything solved? 14:06:07 <cbuilara> zakim, unmute me 14:06:12 <Zakim> cbuilara was not muted, cbuilara 14:06:31 <LeeF> cbuilara: remaining issue is the comment from Axel - I will check that in today 14:06:37 <LeeF> ... fed query document is OK after that 14:07:12 <cbuilara> kasei: I'm not sure if everything is fixed 14:07:21 <cbuilara> s/LeeF/kasei 14:07:33 <cbuilara> kasei: I will have a look at the document 14:07:39 <cbuilara> zakim, mute me 14:07:40 <Zakim> cbuilara should now be muted 14:08:02 <cbuilara> LeeF: my main concern is that people is communicating 14:08:22 <LeeF> ACTION-514? 14:08:22 <trackbot> ACTION-514 -- Axel Polleres to look at Greg's review of federated query -- due 2011-08-16 -- OPEN 14:08:22 <trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2009/sparql/track/actions/514 14:08:35 <cbuilara> LeeF: Greg to look at the document and review it 14:08:48 <LeeF> topic: String functions 14:09:06 <LeeF> Comment from Jeen: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-dawg-comments/2011Aug/0001.html 14:10:52 <LeeF> ack pgearon 14:11:03 <pgearon> sorry, having trouble with mute 14:11:35 <cbuilara> pgearon: I don't have a strong feeling on the hash functions, but the common ones 14:11:43 <LeeF> LeeF: 3 questions: 1) right set of string functions? 2) string functions are 1-indexed 3) set of hash functions 14:11:54 <cbuilara> pgearon: I never run to use the other hash functions 14:12:10 <cbuilara> pgearon: I do not have any particular use case 14:12:48 <cbuilara> LeeF: there wasn't strong objections to include all funcions 14:13:21 <cbuilara> LeeF: anyone objected to have all hash functons? 14:13:58 <Zakim> +Sandro 14:14:42 <cbuilara> LeeF: minutes of the hash functions: http://www.w3.org/2009/sparql/meeting/2010-12-07 14:15:13 <pgearon> my original position was that we should do all possible functions. This was not based on a perceived need for them all, but because I thought it was cheap to do. 14:15:55 <pgearon> Steve's comment indicates that it isn't so easy (I have not had an opportunity to implement these myself). 14:16:24 <LeeF> q? 14:16:39 <swh> Decent implementations of the more obscure ones are hard to come by, but it's not the end of the world 14:16:45 <cbuilara> LeeF: it seems a "why not add them all attitude?" any more opinions on that? 14:17:03 <AndyS> q+ 14:17:35 <LeeF> ack AndyS 14:18:40 <cbuilara> LeeF: we do not have a protocol document, we can update the last call for hash functions without being a bit problem 14:18:55 <cbuilara> AndyS: it could be possible a second last call? 14:18:57 <LeeF> AxelPolleres, does RIF use the 1-indexed string functions? 14:19:52 <LeeF> q? 14:20:15 <pgearon> LeeF: RIF does use 1 based indexing 14:20:24 <LeeF> LeeF: if we trimmed the SHA functions, which ones would we include? 14:20:30 <LeeF> AndyS: SHA1 and SHA256 I think? 14:20:35 <cbuilara> AndyS: I do not have experience of people using SHA2 14:21:31 <cbuilara> LeeF: if anybody is ok to remove SHA2, say it 14:23:18 <cbuilara> LeeF: get somebody to select the right hash functions 14:23:20 <AndyS> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SHA-1#SHA-1 14:23:28 <LeeF> ACTION: Sandro to ask W3C security experts about popular / useful hash functions 14:23:28 <trackbot> Created ACTION-536 - Ask W3C security experts about popular / useful hash functions [on Sandro Hawke - due 2011-10-04]. 14:24:27 <LeeF> LeeF: We seem to have consensus on removingsome less comomn hash functions. We'll revisit this with a concrete resolution pending expert input on which ones to keep. 14:24:33 <LeeF> ack pgearon 14:25:25 <LeeF> pgearon: perhaps include a note in the document reminding people about function extensibility 14:26:13 <Zakim> + +1.781.899.aaee 14:26:24 <Zakim> -Sandro 14:27:24 <cbuilara> LeeF: my inclination would be to keep it in the way it is 14:27:27 <LeeF> subtopic: 1-indexed strings 14:27:29 <mperry> I am for 1-based strings 14:27:36 <LeeF> ack pgearon 14:27:39 <cbuilara> LeeF: what people think? 14:28:01 <cbuilara> pgearon: I'm happy with 1-based string 14:28:31 <cbuilara> AndyS: I'm neutral 14:28:41 <cbuilara> Andy: about the hash functions 14:28:55 <cbuilara> AndyS: we do not have any operation that return indexes 14:29:28 <cbuilara> AndyS: it is probably a mistake that we did not get it 14:29:57 <pgearon> I'm looking at RIF right now, and it doesn't have a string search 14:30:44 <AndyS> http://www.w3.org/TR/xpath-functions/#string-functions 14:31:24 <pgearon> RIF probably doesn't need it, since with logic programming you can just put a variable in for func:substring and it will fill in the value of the variable for you 14:31:53 <cbuilara> LeeF: why didn't xpath operations does not include index operations 14:32:15 <cbuilara> Sandro: we can ask, xquery may have some similar operations to that 14:34:14 <cbuilara> LeeF: Jeen is asking what criteria does the grup have about the string functions 14:35:13 <LeeF> LeeF: Seems to be consensus to keep 1-indexed strings in string functions (as per XML F&O and RIF) 14:35:44 <cbuilara> LeeF: question about set of functions 14:36:05 <AndyS> "fn:substring-before" and "fn:substring-after" go someway to help - they produce strings 14:37:04 <AxelPolleres> In RIF the criterion was basically scanning the ones in http://www.w3.org/TR/xpath-functions/#string-functions and taking those on board which we thought would be reasonable for that group's purposes (not much more, we definitly didn't think of other functions except those from Xpath/Xquery for strings) 14:38:14 <chimezie> for what its worth 14:38:34 <chimezie> i write XPath often without the need for explicit index returning functions (using substring-before and after, etc.) 14:40:15 <chimezie> Zakim, unmute me 14:40:15 <Zakim> chimezie should no longer be muted 14:40:33 <cbuilara> Sandro: I will send a quick note to the xpath staff contact asking for comments about string functions 14:42:00 <cbuilara> LeeF: better to include substring before and after, anybodydisagrees? 14:42:07 <LeeF> LeeF: If we're already doing a 2nd last call, we probably ought to include substring-before and substring-after 14:42:42 <chimezie> Zakim, mute me 14:42:42 <Zakim> chimezie should now be muted 14:42:51 <LeeF> for next week's agenda: PROPOSED: Include substring-before and substring-after as SPARQL 1.1 Query functions 14:43:11 <AxelPolleres> Naive proposal would be to propose to expand to those functions we miss from RIF's string functions, particularly substring-before/after ... would that do? (at least we would be cohherent between RIF and SPARQL then) on a quick look, we miss substring-before., substring-after, string-join, replace, 14:44:00 <LeeF> topic: implementation report 14:45:00 <kasei> http://www.w3.org/2009/sparql/implementations/ 14:45:03 <cbuilara> kasei: the output from that code in the cvs, one line per test, generates a quick summary 14:45:44 <chimezie> i can begin to produce EARL 14:45:46 <cbuilara> LeeF: people should start producing reports 14:45:51 <chimezie> Zakim, unmute me 14:45:51 <Zakim> chimezie should no longer be muted 14:48:52 <cbuilara> kasei: some of the tests files in CVS are not available with no login into the W3C 14:49:35 <kasei> http://www.w3.org/2009/sparql/docs/tests/data-sparql11/functions/ 14:50:01 <kasei> the file notin01.rq should appear in that directory listing, but doesn't. 14:51:32 <cbuilara> Sandro: still searching for the problem 14:53:20 <cbuilara> LeeF: chimezie summarize entailment 14:53:33 <AndyS> SJ = Simon Johnstone 14:54:43 <Zakim> -chimezie 14:54:44 <AndyS> FWIW -- Fuseki sniffs the filename on multifile load -- browsers don't set content type 14:54:51 <cbuilara> s/entailment/protocol comments 14:55:09 <sandro> q+ re permissions 14:55:12 <cbuilara> s/entailment/protocol comments/ 14:55:46 <LeeF> ack sandro 14:55:46 <Zakim> sandro, you wanted to discuss permissions 14:56:58 <mperry> bye 14:57:06 <Zakim> -AndyS 14:57:14 <Zakim> -mperry 14:57:28 <Zakim> -Olivier 14:58:06 <cbuilara> Sandro: there may be a problem with the CVS server, I will try to refresh 15:00:31 <AndyS> if anyone (any two) people could confirm responses DM-1 and DB-11, I'd be most grateful. 15:00:55 <AndyS> pgearon - there are some shared query/update responses to draft. 15:01:35 <pgearon> OK. Just realized last night I have one for David Booth that I'm behind on 15:04:24 <sandro> notin01.rq : ➔ Gregory Williams (gwilliam) can admin 15:04:24 <sandro> Team access can admin # SPECIAL MARKER FOR CHATSYNC. DO NOT EDIT THIS LINE OR BELOW. SRCLINESUSED=00000188