15:02:38 RRSAgent has joined #sparql-ent 15:02:38 logging to http://www.w3.org/2010/02/24-sparql-ent-irc 15:02:51 agenda: http://www.w3.org/2009/sparql/wiki/Agenda-2010-02-24 17:02:17 kpbrown has joined #sparql-ent 17:02:20 kpbrown has left #sparql-ent 17:30:06 Zakim has left #sparql-ent 17:40:21 ivan has joined #sparql-ent 17:40:28 Zakim has joined #sparql-ent 17:46:03 Hi Ivan 17:46:10 hi birte 17:46:21 can we set the link to the agenda as chat topic? 17:46:29 http://www.w3.org/2009/sparql/wiki/Agenda-2010-02-24 17:46:32 of course 17:46:35 I didn't manage to do that 17:46:45 ivan has changed the topic to: http://www.w3.org/2009/sparql/wiki/Agenda-2010-02-24 17:46:54 :-) 17:46:55 ivan has changed the topic to: agenda: http://www.w3.org/2009/sparql/wiki/Agenda-2010-02-24 17:47:32 zakim, room for 10 for 90 minutes? 17:47:33 ok, ivan; conference Team_(sparql-ent)17:47Z scheduled with code 26631 (CONF1) for 90 minutes until 1917Z 17:47:44 here we are:-) 17:47:58 I asked for 90 minutes if we round out (and we still have 10 minutes) 17:48:44 ivan has changed the topic to: Zakim code 26631, agenda http://www.w3.org/2009/sparql/wiki/Agenda-2010-02-24 17:49:19 :-) 17:50:32 I've updated the wiki agenda now 17:58:37 Team_(sparql-ent)17:47Z has now started 17:58:44 +bglimm 17:58:45 AxelPolleres has joined #sparql-ent 17:58:53 hi all 17:58:57 Hi 17:59:01 The access code is 26631 17:59:02 chime? 17:59:07 Not yet 18:01:44 will sandro join? 18:01:52 He said so I think 18:01:55 zakim, dial ivan-voip 18:01:55 ok, ivan; the call is being made 18:01:57 +Ivan 18:02:41 +AxelPolleres 18:03:42 sandro has joined #sparql-ent 18:03:48 zakim, what is the code? 18:03:48 the conference code is 26631 (tel:+1.617.761.6200 tel:+33.4.89.06.34.99 tel:+44.117.370.6152), sandro 18:03:51 rrsagent, pointer? 18:03:51 See http://www.w3.org/2010/02/24-sparql-ent-irc#T18-03-51 18:04:11 +Sandro 18:04:15 zakim, who is on the call? 18:04:15 On the phone I see bglimm, Ivan, AxelPolleres, Sandro 18:05:33 (axel to make sure anything important gets recorded, but not really scribe.) 18:05:35 topic: general entailment regimes issues 18:05:50 inconsistency handling is not clear 18:06:55 sandro: at least, is there a protocol way to signal inconsistency, even if not required 18:07:03 ... seems to me that we want to have that 18:08:13 q+ 18:10:04 chimezie has joined #sparql-ent 18:10:13 birte can you paste the C2 variation again? 18:10:28 + +1.216.445.aaaa 18:10:31 Wait a sec 18:10:35 guess that's chime? 18:10:42 Zakim +1.216.445.aaaa is me 18:10:44 yes :) 18:10:47 Current C2 in PWD: 18:10:47 (C2) Each variable x that occurs in the subject position of a triple in 18:10:47 BGP is such that sk(μ(x)) occurs in sk(SG). 18:10:48 Proposed C2: 18:10:48 (C2) For each variable x in V(BGP), sk(μ(x)) occurs in sk(SG) or in 18:10:48 Vocab. 18:12:16 rdf:_1 .... rdf:_n ? 18:13:28 Vocab is a meant here to be a finite subset of the RDF, RDFS, OWL vocabularies 18:13:34 Here vocal is defined as the reserved vocabulary for the entailment 18:13:34 regime (e.g., the RDF vocabulary for RDF entailment) minus terms of the 18:13:34 form rdf:_n with n in {1, 2, …}. 18:15:24 this condition is not about inconsistencies, is it? 18:15:49 ivan: we don't want to restrict, where we don't have to. 18:17:51 my problem is ... we cannot reach the infinite wisdom... anyways 18:21:17 if we want to keep answers finite... we have to drop intuitiveness at some point :-( 18:24:00 still la bit puzzled about the role of data values in C2 18:24:29 take the decision on C2 on email... 18:25:25 birte to please explain the role of data values in C2 18:25:40 topic: shall we mark rif "at risk"? 18:26:25 ivan: rif not being rrec shouldn't be a problem, confident that it will be ready there, afraid that it would be interpreted in underied way, if we mark it 18:26:31 birte: ok 18:31:08 I think we can define SPARQL wrt a RIF/RDF combination... but not really how you get to the scoping graph? 18:31:32 we can just say what the scoping grpah for some RIF/RDF combination is 18:33:27 we can sort out how we get to the correspondoing RIF/RDF combination later on. 18:34:07 q+ 18:34:25 birte: at some point it was discussed whether we'd have an entailment regime per ruleset. 18:34:28 q+ 18:34:34 ack ivan 18:34:42 ivan thinks that this is useless.. 18:34:59 Here's somebody from RIF suggestion that: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rif-wg/2010Jan/0019.html 18:35:05 q+ to state that this point is void, if we have solved "rif:imports" 18:35:18 ack AxelPolleres 18:35:18 AxelPolleres, you wanted to state that this point is void, if we have solved "rif:imports" 18:36:43 sandro: the case that is still open is... 18:37:09 ... how does the client state which ruleset? 18:37:27 FROM mygraph ... 18:37:36 where mygraph refers to a ruleset 18:38:05 don't we need: QUERY ... FROM ... WITH .... 18:39:04 ahhhh, FROM 18:39:55 Select ... FROM data.rdf FROM rules.rdf WHERE { ... } 18:40:22 so this needs RIF-in-RDF for FROM. 18:41:01 ivan: the rules.rdf would be an rdf graph with the rif:import triple in it. 18:41:10 the current definitions (if we don't want to interfer with SPARQL 1.0 ) we can't do FROM 18:41:16 yes that would work 18:41:34 ... but we can do FROM <... rif:imports ...> 18:42:49 it should probably called rif:useRuleSet or something like that 18:43:04 or even sparql:useRuleSet 18:44:08 sparql:useRuleSet 18:44:51 conclusion: if necessary, we can do rif-import under spaql 18:45:01 conclusion is... if all goes wrong, we can do "rif:imports" ourselves. 18:45:57 I think we can handle bnodes. 18:46:24 chime suggested to stick with *strongly safe* core? 18:47:30 if p(?n) then p(?n+1). 18:47:30 p(1). 18:47:31 and the query 18:47:31 p(?x). 18:51:01 sandro: why the finiteness restriction in first place? 18:51:05 can we change that? 18:51:42 ... no implementation crucially relies on that. 18:52:17 ...if it's just not intuitive, we may want to question that. 18:53:19 axel: simple way to restrict finiteness: things in answer must occur in data. 18:55:38 sandro: that's a non starter -- you couldn't get results from a computation. 18:56:07 axel: you could allow computations to recursive level N from the data. 18:57:03 sandro: just say it has to be any finite number of recursions. 18:57:11 sandro: how if we only restrict that any implemnentation has to limit the recursion depth. 18:57:16 ... but not how? 18:58:42 p(1) 18:58:56 q(x+1) :- p(x). 18:59:10 r(x+1) :- q(x) 19:05:43 sandro: suggests... just leave behaivor of SPARQL undefined whenever the closure of R is infinite? 19:07:23 chime: suggest to standardise a possibly boring finite subset 19:07:35 sandr: suggest to just don't worry about finiteness 19:07:43 (two quite opposite positions) 19:09:16 sandro: use case, define an odd() predicate, then query for { ?s ?p ?o; ?o a oddNumber } 19:09:41 -bglimm 19:09:52 sorry dropped out 19:11:33 +bglimm 19:11:48 q+ 19:12:06 ivan is still on the q 19:12:50 axel: a use case for RIF in SPARQL with strongly-safe core == subsets of RDFS-entailment, ad hoc OWL-RL entailment. 19:13:46 ivan: what comes to my mind... did we have in SPARQL a way to include a time/resource limit? 19:14:01 sandro: we only have result limit 19:14:08 sandro: I think it only has LIMIT; with entailment, yes, it would be nice to have TIME limit, too. 19:14:08 resource limit: LIMIT N 19:15:03 not for this round, I guess. 19:15:50 sandro: maybe you can throw this in the SPARQL protocol, as an ignore-if-you-don't-understand 19:16:32 -Ivan 19:16:32 bye 19:16:33 - +1.216.445.aaaa 19:16:33 thanks birte... 19:16:35 -Sandro 19:16:35 adjourned 19:16:46 -bglimm 19:16:48 -AxelPolleres 19:16:49 Team_(sparql-ent)17:47Z has ended 19:16:51 Attendees were bglimm, Ivan, AxelPolleres, Sandro, +1.216.445.aaaa 19:17:10 rrsagent, make records public 19:17:31 rrsagent, pointer? 19:17:31 See http://www.w3.org/2010/02/24-sparql-ent-irc#T19-17-31 19:19:20 ewwwww. commonscribe doesn't want to handle this irc log being on a strange channel. 19:21:55 hm, what's so strange about it. Should I pick a different one for the next teleconf? 19:22:57 it's just looking for #sparql. maybe easier to use that, next time, since there's no conflict with the WG at that time. 19:23:34 ok. Whoever is not interested in entailments can just ignore us ;-) 19:24:12 indeed. 19:44:50 AxelPolleres has left #sparql-ent 21:59:49 Zakim has left #sparql-ent