From SPARQL Working Group
Revision as of 16:03, 15 November 2011 by Sandro
Please justify/explain all edits to this page, in your "edit summary" text.
14:51:24 <RRSAgent> RRSAgent has joined #sparql 14:51:24 <RRSAgent> logging to http://www.w3.org/2011/11/15-sparql-irc 14:51:26 <trackbot> RRSAgent, make logs world 14:51:26 <Zakim> Zakim has joined #sparql 14:51:28 <trackbot> Zakim, this will be 77277 14:51:28 <Zakim> ok, trackbot; I see SW_(SPARQL)10:00AM scheduled to start in 9 minutes 14:51:29 <trackbot> Meeting: SPARQL Working Group Teleconference 14:51:29 <trackbot> Date: 15 November 2011 14:52:09 <AndyS> Query doc isn't finished yet -- see PosLastCall page. 14:52:19 <AndyS> wiki:PostLastCall 14:52:24 <AxelPolleres_> agenda: http://www.w3.org/2009/sparql/wiki/Agenda-2011-11-08 (essentially the same points, we'll run through status/progress made and PostLastCall page) 14:52:31 <AxelPolleres_> chair: AxelPolleres 14:52:59 <AxelPolleres_> http://www.w3.org/2009/sparql/wiki/PostLastCall 14:53:38 <kasei> ok, thanks AndyS 14:55:24 <AxelPolleres_> regrets:BirteGlimm 14:58:35 <AxelPolleres_> As regards "future work", lee has started a new page: http://www.w3.org/2009/sparql/wiki/Future_Work_Items 14:59:25 <MattPerry> MattPerry has joined #sparql 14:59:53 <AxelPolleres_> Open issue from last time: assign reviewers for protocol 15:00:21 <kasei> Zakim, I hate you. 15:00:21 <Zakim> I don't understand 'I hate you', kasei 15:00:24 <Zakim> SW_(SPARQL)10:00AM has now started 15:00:31 <Zakim> +kasei 15:00:43 <Zakim> + +1.603.897.aaaa 15:00:45 <kasei> wow. that seems to have worked. need to curse Zakim more often. 15:00:56 <MattPerry> zakim, aaaa is me 15:00:56 <Zakim> +MattPerry; got it 15:01:03 <Zakim> + +49.897.aabb 15:01:19 <AxelPolleres_> Zakim, aabb is probably me 15:01:23 <Zakim> +[Sophia] #15:01:25 <Zakim> +AxelPolleres_?; got it 15:02:02 <AxelPolleres_> Zakim, who is on the phone? 15:02:04 <LeeF> Zakim, I hate you. 15:02:05 <Zakim> On the phone I see kasei, MattPerry, AxelPolleres_?, [Sophia] 15:02:09 <Zakim> I don't understand 'I hate you', LeeF 15:02:13 <Zakim> + +1.617.553.aacc 15:02:15 <LeeF> sweet, works like a charm 15:02:17 <Zakim> +??P12 15:02:18 <LeeF> zakim, aacc is me 15:02:19 <Zakim> +LeeF; got it 15:02:22 <AndyS> zakim, ??P12 is me 15:02:22 <Zakim> +AndyS; got it 15:02:23 <kasei> there's no agenda online? 15:02:44 <pgearon> pgearon has joined #sparql 15:02:45 <kasei> ah, ok. 15:03:14 <Zakim> +pgearon 15:03:15 <AxelPolleres_> Zakim, who is on the phone? 15:03:15 <Zakim> On the phone I see kasei, MattPerry, AxelPolleres_?, [Sophia], LeeF, AndyS, pgearon 15:04:21 <chimezie> chimezie has joined #sparql 15:05:06 <AxelPolleres_> Zakim, who is on the phone? 15:05:06 <Zakim> On the phone I see kasei, MattPerry, AxelPolleres_?, [Sophia], LeeF, AndyS, pgearon 15:05:12 <Zakim> + +1.216.368.aadd 15:05:35 <chimezie> Zakim, +1.216.368.aadd is me 15:05:35 <Zakim> +chimezie; got it 15:05:50 <chimezie> Zakim, mute me 15:05:50 <Zakim> chimezie should now be muted 15:06:25 <Zakim> +Sandro 15:06:45 <AxelPolleres_> sandro, can you scribe? 15:06:51 <bglimm> bglimm has joined #sparql 15:06:54 <Zakim> -Sandro 15:07:07 <AxelPolleres_> scribe: AxelPolleres 15:07:14 <AxelPolleres_> topic: admin 15:07:18 <Zakim> +sandro 15:07:32 <AxelPolleres_> scribe: sandro 15:07:44 <chimezie> I'm getting caught up with my ACTION items outstanding (unable to last week) 15:08:06 <sandro> axel: Agenda is reviewing status of documents, checking on reviews; see where we are toward the next publication round. 15:08:24 <AxelPolleres_> PROPOSED: Approve minutes at http://www.w3.org/2009/sparql/meeting/2011-11-08 15:08:56 <AxelPolleres_> RESOLVED: Approve minutes at http://www.w3.org/2009/sparql/meeting/2011-11-08 15:09:47 <sandro> axel: (looking for next scribe) 15:10:13 <chimezie> sure 15:10:23 <AxelPolleres_> scribe for next week: chime 15:10:44 <sandro> topic: liaison with RDF WG 15:10:50 <sandro> axel: some email; comment Andy? 15:11:20 <sandro> andy: No current decisions by RDF WG affecting us. Just working through consequences of decisions earlier on, eg datatype changes 15:11:25 <AxelPolleres_> discussion on effects of http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-dawg/2011OctDec/0149.html 15:11:33 <sandro> andy: There will be something about RDF Graphs, but not yet. 15:11:40 <sandro> axel: You did some changes based on datatype decision? 15:12:36 <sandro> andy: Because all literals will have datatypes, the DATATYPE( ) fn in sparql is affected. It didn't cover lits with lang tags. plain lits without lang tags were already returned as xs:string. Now it returns rdf:LangString for lang tagged strings. 15:13:17 <sandro> axel: So we're blending in some RDF 1.1 features there. Shall we discuss this as a group, since we already decided to stick to RDF 1.0, with only commentary about RDF 1.1. 15:13:28 <sandro> axel: any opinions? 15:13:35 <sandro> (silence) 15:13:52 <sandro> +1 I'm fine with proceeding like this. 15:14:11 <kasei> i'm hesitant to change it at this point. 15:14:23 <sandro> axel: So, we'll try to keep as close as we can to RDF 1.1 without disrupting the test suite. 15:14:47 <pgearon> Olivier had a question about loading RDF data where data from 1.1 may define multiple graphs, but Update 1.1 currently specifies a particular graph 15:15:03 <sandro> kasei: I'm wary of making changes that potentially change the results of SPARQL 1.1 queries, on something that's not a spec (REC) yet. 15:15:25 <sandro> axel: this dt is in RDF 1.1? 15:15:28 <sandro> sandro: yes 15:15:34 <sandro> axel: so we have to wait for it? 15:15:52 <AxelPolleres_> I am a bit worried processwise 15:15:57 <LeeF> We wouldn't need to wait because we're not leaning on RDF, we're just defining things ourselves 15:16:09 <LeeF> at least, that's how i understood what Andy did 15:16:15 <AndyS> +1 to LeeF 15:16:25 <sandro> sandro: we can just define what we need ourselves 15:16:33 <sandro> sandro: it's half a sentence..... 15:16:47 <sandro> axel: Does any of this affect D-Entailment and the fixed datatype map, Birte? 15:16:50 <kasei> won't this change results of in-the-wild 1.0 queries? 15:17:11 <sandro> axel: I'll ask Birte in email 15:17:39 <sandro> kasei: won't this change results of in-the-wild 1.0 queries? 15:18:09 <sandro> andy: Yes, all the RDF 1.1 changes have that potential. Particularly with datatypes, which is one of our extension points. 15:18:13 <LeeF> Was it an error in SPARQL 1.0 or an empty sting? 15:18:19 <LeeF> s/sting/string 15:18:36 <sandro> andy: THe change to simple literals, having xs:string is also like this. 15:18:39 <AndyS> error 15:19:13 <sandro> axel: two observable changes. plain literals with and without language tags. 15:19:15 <LeeF> I'm comfortable making a change that goes from error --> proper semantics -- I think that's consistent with SPARQL's extension mechanism in general 15:19:43 <Olivier_> The problem is that rdf:LangString is not a definitive decision in a final REC, so it may change ? 15:19:45 <chimezie> I would concur to those who understand this better than me 15:19:52 <AndyS> zakim, who is on the phone? 15:19:52 <Zakim> On the phone I see kasei, MattPerry, AxelPolleres_?, [Sophia], LeeF, AndyS, pgearon, chimezie (muted), sandro 15:20:02 <chimezie> s/concur/defer 15:20:02 <pgearon> +q 15:20:05 <LeeF> Olivier_, I do share that concern... it's a little risky 15:20:51 <sandro> lee: there is some risk of RDF WG changing its mind 15:21:05 <sandro> andy: either way we're a bit stuck. 15:21:12 <sandro> andy: it's a no win situation 15:21:38 <AxelPolleres_> Can we ask the RDF WG at least to make some formal resolution for the URI, or is that alrady there? 15:21:43 <sandro> lee: We could just put a note in about what we expect. 15:21:52 <kasei> if we were divergent from the eventual rdf1.1 spec, though, implementors could still do extensions to align. 15:22:34 <sandro> axel: we seem fine with xs:string... 15:22:37 <sandro> andy: that's not a change 15:22:50 <sandro> andy: It was already in SPARQL 1.9 15:22:58 <sandro> s/1.9/1.0/ 15:23:14 <AxelPolleres_> Alternative 1: return an error 15:23:36 <LeeF> DATATYPE("foo"@en) 15:23:38 <AxelPolleres_> Alternative 2: return rdf:LangString 15:23:47 <sandro> 2 15:23:48 <LeeF> 2 15:24:05 <LeeF> 2 (with note is good) 15:24:23 <sandro> andy: Don't hide it. Put a note in the spec about the change. 15:24:27 <LeeF> Don't think somewhere else would be "hiding", but still happy to just include it 15:24:27 <AndyS> Alternative 3: as alt 2 with a note about the change 15:24:43 <sandro> axel: We could use "AT RISK" so we can drop it during CR. 15:24:54 <AxelPolleres_> 2 (mark explicitly at risk) 15:24:58 <MattPerry> 1 15:24:58 <chimezie> which alternative is at risk? 15:25:17 <chimezie> 2 15:25:19 <AndyS> 2 or 3 15:25:22 <Olivier_> 2 15:25:27 <kasei> 0 15:25:40 <sandro> sandro: Yeah, I think "AT RISK" can say datatype URI may change. 15:26:24 <sandro> MattPerry: This is a mild preference, toward letting implementors do the extension, but I wouldn't lie in the road over this, no. 15:26:31 <AxelPolleres_> direction seems to be to go for Alternative 2 with an AT RISK note. 15:26:41 <sandro> axel: sound like: we'll go with alternative 2, with an AT RISK note. 15:26:50 <Zakim> +??P2 15:27:24 <sandro> axel: Any more about Query document? How close is it to review-ready. 15:27:29 <AxelPolleres_> topic: query 15:27:32 <sandro> andy: I'm working through the list of work items. 15:27:49 <sandro> steve: someone spotted an order consistency problem 15:28:04 <sandro> steve: mismatch between my head and [something]. 15:28:18 <sandro> axel: Reviewable by next telecon? 15:28:26 <sandro> steve: I'm aiming for it, but ... 50/50. 15:28:36 <AndyS> Unlikely on my part. 15:28:45 <AxelPolleres_> we aim at reviewable state by next Telco? 15:28:58 <bglimm> I plan to review the non-algebra sections tomorrow. Is that ok (sorry, only IRC) 15:29:00 <sandro> axel: Birte will review in parallel, in order to have a chance to vote within 2 weeks. Okay? 15:29:26 <pgearon> q- 15:29:26 <kasei> yes 15:29:26 <AndyS> bglimm - doc not finished, hopefully local changes only but several to do. 15:29:40 <bglimm> ok, then I better wait 15:29:47 <sandro> axel: Greg, can you start reviewing? 15:29:52 <sandro> kasei: Whenever it's ready 15:30:01 <bglimm> or you send a list naming the sections that are ready 15:30:14 <swh> swh has joined #sparql 15:30:27 <swh> Zakim, who's on the phone? 15:30:27 <Zakim> On the phone I see kasei, MattPerry, AxelPolleres_?, [Sophia], LeeF, AndyS, pgearon, chimezie (muted), sandro, ??P2 15:30:33 <swh> Zakim, ??P2 is me 15:30:33 <Zakim> +swh; got it 15:30:53 <sandro> topic: Overview, Fed pubs 15:31:01 <sandro> axel: Docs are ready. 15:31:55 <sandro> sandro: I think we can publish today. I might need a little help. 15:32:20 <sandro> sandro: I'll do my best. 15:32:36 <sandro> axel: announcing them? 15:33:28 <sandro> axel: wait for it on w3.org, then re-announce as you like 15:34:01 <chimezie> Zakim, unmute me 15:34:01 <Zakim> chimezie should no longer be muted 15:34:05 <sandro> topic: graph store protocol 15:34:25 <sandro> axel: I think this is ready? we just need feedback from all the commenters. 15:34:49 <sandro> chimezie: I only need to followup with people with non-substantive comment, and inconclusive comments. 15:35:16 <sandro> chimezie: working through them, then it'll be ready for review 15:35:33 <sandro> axel: Send mail to list when it's ready to review. Then Andy and Sandro will review 15:35:41 <sandro> chimezie: okay 15:36:21 <sandro> topic: Service Description 15:36:34 <sandro> axel: I didn't find time to do my review yet. 15:37:07 <AxelPolleres> AxelPolleres has joined #sparql 15:37:07 <sandro> (axel having IRC problems.) 15:37:26 <sandro> topic: ENtailment Regimes 15:37:38 <sandro> axel: Birte says second review by Markus Kr. 15:37:44 <sandro> topic: Update 15:37:52 <bglimm> Yes, Markus will review 15:37:52 <AxelPolleres> http://www.w3.org/2009/sparql/wiki/PostLastCall#Update 15:37:54 <sandro> axel: post-last-call page says some things have been done 15:38:22 <bglimm> I've send out replies to Michael Schneider last week, but haven't received feedback yet 15:39:20 <sandro> axel: have one review; document is close to reviewable. 15:39:31 <sandro> axel: second reviewer = Matt. 15:39:40 <sandro> MattPerry: I'll wait for the next version 15:39:49 <sandro> topic: Protocol 15:39:53 <AndyS> pgearon - comments RC-4 and DB-4 -- have had time to look/complete the update parts of the draft response? 15:40:12 <sandro> lee: Greg and I have done most of what needs to be done; document is ready to review. 15:40:39 <AxelPolleres> ACTION: AndyS to review protocol 15:40:40 <trackbot> Created ACTION-559 - Review protocol [on Andy Seaborne - due 2011-11-22]. 15:40:52 <sandro> lee: there are three open protocol issues, on tracker -- once reviewers have looked over them, we can close those issues next week, based on what's in current document. 15:41:05 <sandro> axel: reviews by Andy, and ...? 15:41:25 <pgearon> AndyS: not sure. I've done a number of things lately, and I don't recall if those are in the mix. Will get back to you as soon as I'm done with the review from Olivier 15:41:30 <chimezie> Zakim, mute me 15:41:30 <Zakim> chimezie should now be muted 15:41:43 <swh> what's the deadline? 15:42:03 <AndyS> pgearon - I'll see updates to the wiki via RSS. 15:42:23 <AxelPolleres> Olivier, Carlos, any chance foryou to take a second review on board? 15:42:38 <Olivier_> Yes 15:42:38 <sandro> SteveH: I can't morally do it until I'm done with Query. Maybe I can rope someone here into doing it. 15:42:41 <LeeF> ACTION: Steve to make a best effort attempt to review or delegate a review for protocol 15:42:41 <trackbot> Created ACTION-560 - Make a best effort attempt to review or delegate a review for protocol [on Steve Harris - due 2011-11-22]. 15:42:53 <LeeF> ACTION: Olivier to review SPARQL protocol document 15:42:54 <trackbot> Created ACTION-561 - Review SPARQL protocol document [on Olivier Corby - due 2011-11-22]. 15:43:15 <sandro> lee: Greg and I will send an email later today saying when it's totally ready for review. 15:43:28 <sandro> topic: JSON Results Format 15:43:43 <sandro> axel: We said this doesn't need review. ready for CR. 15:43:49 <sandro> topic: Comments 15:44:06 <sandro> axel: Nothing substantial new. Please update the wiki page as you handle comments. 15:44:25 <sandro> topic: Any Other Business 15:45:17 <sandro> axel: Paul, was there anything else you needed to discuss? 15:45:53 <sandro> pgearon: One thing that came up was the LOAD operation, which Olivier asked about. If RDF 1.1 has a syntax for multiple graphs, will the LOAD command need that. 15:46:00 <AxelPolleres> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-dawg/2011OctDec/0145.html 15:46:27 <sandro> axel: which comment...? 15:46:37 <AxelPolleres> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-dawg/2011OctDec/0143.html Olivier's review 15:47:58 <AndyS> Fuseki (will be) implementing loading quads if LOAD <foo> and no INTO -- user request and expectation. 15:48:06 <Zakim> -chimezie 15:48:09 <sandro> pgearon: Not taking into account this direction of RDF 1.1 is a cause for concern for me 15:48:17 <sandro> axel: This would rather go into a note 15:48:45 <sandro> pgearon: Also, the additional copy/move shortcuts. At Risk. 15:48:50 <AxelPolleres> COPY, ADD MOVE... still marked as AT RISK 15:49:07 <LeeF> I feel the same way I felt all along 15:49:08 <sandro> AxelPolleres: Only feedback was to keep it. 15:49:16 <LeeF> Keep it AT RISK and see who does / does not implement it 15:49:43 <sandro> LeeF: If people implement it, we'll keep it. 15:50:21 <sandro> lee: "At Risk" is about implementation exerpeince, during CR. 15:50:49 <sandro> AndyS: We've had feedback already; why not decide. 15:51:16 <sandro> lee: We're waiting to see how it shows up in implementation report during CR. 15:51:27 <sandro> SteveH: We've implemented it, as has Andy. 15:51:27 <AxelPolleres> Andy, Steve have implemented it. 15:51:31 <sandro> Lee: We have not. 15:51:58 <AxelPolleres> (Discussion whether or not to leave the AT RISK note in) 15:52:11 <AxelPolleres> sandro: let's strive for only as many AT RISK notes as we need. 15:52:47 <pgearon> +1 to remove AT RISK note 15:52:58 <AndyS> Note it is the grammar in rq25 15:53:01 <swh> +1 -- IFF there's 3+ implementations, -1 otherwise 15:53:04 <MattPerry> +1 15:53:05 <LeeF> -1 15:53:09 <Olivier_> +1 15:53:10 <AndyS> +1 15:53:13 <kasei> -1 15:53:14 <sandro> 0 insufficient data 15:53:19 <AxelPolleres> strawpoll: +1 to remove the at risk note at http://www.w3.org/TR/sparql11-update/#copy 15:53:29 <AxelPolleres> 0 15:53:50 <swh> pgearon, have you implemented it? 15:54:03 <pgearon> no. Have only just started on Update implementation 15:54:11 <pgearon> yes 15:54:11 <swh> then I'm -1 15:55:28 <AxelPolleres> Has sesame implemented it? 15:55:31 <LeeF> I think Anzo does implement it 15:56:14 <LeeF> 3 on the call 15:56:22 <LeeF> including 1 who thinks it's a bad idea anyway :D 15:56:50 <sandro> axel: Is that an objection Lee? 15:57:15 <sandro> Lee: Turns we did implement it, so that's three impls on the call now. 15:57:29 <sandro> lee: no objection 15:58:13 <AxelPolleres> PROPOSED: remove the AT RISK note for COPY, ADD, MOVE in Update 15:58:15 <swh> seconded 15:58:17 <sandro> +1 15:58:22 <AxelPolleres> +1 15:58:23 <Olivier_> +1 15:58:24 <kasei> 0 15:58:27 <MattPerry> +1 15:58:35 <AndyS> +1 15:58:38 <LeeF> 0 15:59:07 <pgearon> +1 15:59:31 <AxelPolleres> RESOLVED: remove the AT RISK note for COPY, ADD, MOVE in Update (7 pro, 2 abstentions, no objections) 15:59:55 <AxelPolleres> adjourned 15:59:55 <sandro> ADJOURNED 15:59:56 <Zakim> -LeeF 15:59:57 <MattPerry> bye 15:59:58 <Zakim> -[Sophia] 15:59:59 <Zakim> -swh 16:00:00 <Zakim> -kasei 16:00:03 <Zakim> -sandro 16:00:04 <Zakim> -pgearon 16:00:09 <Zakim> -AxelPolleres_? 16:00:10 <Zakim> -MattPerry 16:00:26 <AxelPolleres> rrsagent, make records public # SPECIAL MARKER FOR CHATSYNC. DO NOT EDIT THIS LINE OR BELOW. SRCLINESUSED=00000288