13:49:32 RRSAgent has joined #sparql 13:49:32 logging to http://www.w3.org/2010/05/18-sparql-irc 13:49:53 trackbot, this will be SPARQL 13:49:53 Sorry, AxelPolleres, I don't understand 'trackbot, this will be SPARQL'. Please refer to http://www.w3.org/2005/06/tracker/irc for help 13:50:04 Zakim ,this will be SPARQL 13:50:17 Zakim, this will be SPARQL 13:50:17 ok, AxelPolleres; I see SW_(SPARQL)10:00AM scheduled to start in 10 minutes 13:50:30 chair: Axel Polleres 13:51:51 agenda: http://www.w3.org/2009/sparql/wiki/Agenda-2010-05-18 13:52:55 regrets: Ivan Herman, Alexandre Passant 13:55:12 MattPerry has joined #sparql 13:57:17 SW_(SPARQL)10:00AM has now started 13:57:24 +??P3 13:57:38 zakim, ??P3 is me 13:57:38 +AndyS; got it 13:58:53 +OlivierCorby 13:59:22 +AxelPolleres 13:59:35 Zakim, who is on the phone? 13:59:37 + +1.919.332.aaaa 13:59:41 On the phone I see AndyS, OlivierCorby, AxelPolleres, +1.919.332.aaaa 13:59:47 Zakim, aaaa is me 13:59:49 souri has joined #sparql 13:59:51 +dcharbon2; got it 14:00:13 +pgearon 14:00:15 + +1.603.897.aabb 14:00:17 - +1.603.897.aabb 14:00:35 Zakim, who is on the phone? 14:00:35 On the phone I see AndyS, OlivierCorby, AxelPolleres, dcharbon2, pgearon 14:00:47 +kasei 14:00:49 tommik has joined #sparql 14:00:50 Zakim, mute me 14:00:50 kasei should now be muted 14:00:57 + +1.603.897.aacc 14:00:59 +mischat 14:01:01 SteveH has joined #sparql 14:01:04 + +1.603.897.aadd 14:01:13 zakim, aadd is me 14:01:13 +MattPerry; got it 14:01:17 + +035840564aaee 14:01:24 Zakim, ??P3 is me 14:01:27 I already had ??P3 as AndyS, SteveH 14:01:27 zakim, who is on the phone? 14:01:31 On the phone I see AndyS, OlivierCorby, AxelPolleres, dcharbon2, pgearon, kasei (muted), +1.603.897.aacc, mischat, MattPerry, +035840564aaee 14:01:31 zakim, aaee is me 14:01:34 +tommik; got it 14:01:43 Zakim, miscat is me 14:01:44 zakim, aacc is me 14:01:47 sorry, SteveH, I do not recognize a party named 'miscat' 14:01:51 +souri; got it 14:01:52 Zakim, mischat is me 14:02:01 + +86528aaff 14:02:03 +SteveH; got it 14:02:08 I think Zakim didn't get me 14:02:17 scribe: matthew perry 14:02:22 Zakim, + 86528aaff is me 14:02:22 I don't understand '+ 86528aaff is me', bglimm 14:02:28 +Lee_Feigenbaum 14:02:33 Zakim, +86528aaff is me 14:02:34 +bglimm; got it 14:02:41 scribe: MattPerry 14:02:52 AndyS, I did a last minute update on rq25.xml to fix the numbering in aggs 14:03:26 Zakim, mute me 14:03:26 bglimm should now be muted 14:03:36 topic: admin 14:03:41 PROPOSED: Approve minutes at http://www.w3.org/2009/sparql/meeting/2010-05-11 14:04:02 RESOLVED: Approve minutes at http://www.w3.org/2009/sparql/meeting/2010-05-11 14:04:15 chimezie has joined #sparql 14:04:22 Zakim, what is the passcode? 14:04:22 the conference code is 77277 (tel:+1.617.761.6200 tel:+33.4.89.06.34.99 tel:+44.117.370.6152), chimezie 14:04:30 scribe next time... sandro? 14:04:47 +Chimezie_Ogbuji 14:04:48 topic: comment handling 14:04:49 Zakim, mute me 14:04:49 Chimezie_Ogbuji should now be muted 14:05:09 AxelPolleres: 2 comments not assigned 14:05:20 http://www.w3.org/2009/sparql/wiki/Comments 14:05:23 KK-1 14:06:02 ... on http update. No real answer yet 14:06:23 chime on the call? 14:06:29 Zakim, who is on the phone? 14:06:29 On the phone I see AndyS, OlivierCorby, AxelPolleres, dcharbon2, pgearon, kasei (muted), souri, SteveH, MattPerry, tommik, bglimm (muted), Lee_Feigenbaum, Chimezie_Ogbuji (muted) 14:06:46 can't scribe next Axel, but probably in two weeks. 14:07:00 Chime would you be able to take care of KK-1? 14:07:10 [ and regrets for today :-( ] 14:07:19 +[IPcaller] 14:07:19 ACTION: Axel to check on who to assign to KK-1 comment 14:07:19 Created ACTION-238 - Check on who to assign to KK-1 comment [on Axel Polleres - due 2010-05-25]. 14:07:34 regrets: +sandro 14:07:42 chimezie has joined #sparql 14:07:43 NH-4 is a duplicate of NH-1 14:07:56 AxelPolleres: another comment on service description 14:07:59 Zakim, unmute me 14:08:00 Chimezie_Ogbuji should no longer be muted 14:08:04 Zakim, unmute me 14:08:04 kasei should no longer be muted 14:08:11 ... Greg took care of other related comments already 14:08:30 kasei: NH4 is a duplicate of NH1 14:08:44 http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-dawg-comments/2010Apr/0000.html 14:09:07 kasei: that is a duplicate of NH3 14:10:07 ACTION: Axel to remove NH-4 (duplicate) 14:10:07 Created ACTION-239 - Remove NH-4 (duplicate) [on Axel Polleres - due 2010-05-25]. 14:10:34 AxelPolleres: Chime to handle KK - 1 comment 14:10:52 topic: liasons 14:11:16 AxelPolleres: RIF went to proposed recommendation 14:11:40 Orri: use case doc will be published in a week or so for rdb2rdf 14:12:06 sandro is not here 14:12:06 any news from egov? 14:12:28 topic: next publication round 14:12:33 topic: next publications 14:12:43 Zakim, mute me 14:12:43 Chimezie_Ogbuji should now be muted 14:13:12 AxelPolleres: should we include latest decision on Negation in query doc? 14:13:14 Zakim, mute me 14:13:14 kasei should now be muted 14:13:46 AndyS: I have updated the grammar, section on negation needs updating 14:13:47 Zakim, who is on the phone? 14:13:47 On the phone I see AndyS, OlivierCorby, AxelPolleres, dcharbon2, pgearon, kasei (muted), souri, SteveH, MattPerry, tommik, bglimm (muted), Lee_Feigenbaum, Chimezie_Ogbuji (muted), 14:13:51 ... [IPcaller] 14:14:53 AxelPolleres: no need for additional resolution to publish query doc 14:14:54 ACTION: Axel to have a look on Negation section. 14:14:54 Created ACTION-240 - Have a look on Negation section. [on Axel Polleres - due 2010-05-25]. 14:15:43 Zakim, unmute me 14:15:43 bglimm should no longer be muted 14:15:45 subtopic: Entailment doc 14:15:46 topic: entailment 14:16:04 bglimm: document is ready 14:16:33 Zakim, unmute me 14:16:33 Chimezie_Ogbuji should no longer be muted 14:16:33 ... not sure about Chime's part 14:17:03 chimezie: main issue is do we have authority to provide URI for RIF imports 14:17:21 ACTION: Axel to check back URI use for rif:imports 14:17:21 Created ACTION-241 - Check back URI use for rif:imports [on Axel Polleres - due 2010-05-25]. 14:18:29 AxelPolleres: one more issue, RIF entailment section still has issue with finiteness 14:19:17 chimeze: don't require finiteness, but we can have sections that describe how to ensure finiteness 14:20:14 AxelPolleres: we should have an editor's note that reflects that we can support entailments that are not safe 14:21:31 Zakim, mute me 14:21:31 bglimm should now be muted 14:21:41 ACTION: Chime to update Section 7 to reflect relaxed finiteness conditions for BGP matching extension. 14:21:41 Created ACTION-242 - Update Section 7 to reflect relaxed finiteness conditions for BGP matching extension. [on Chimezie Ogbuji - due 2010-05-25]. 14:22:09 AxelPolleres: we need someone to review the change before we can resolve to publish 14:22:12 ok 14:22:22 then I'll take a look. I wanted to do that anyway 14:22:27 ACTION: Birte to review changes on Section 7. 14:22:27 Created ACTION-243 - Review changes on Section 7. [on Birte Glimm - due 2010-05-25]. 14:22:55 resolve to publish next week, hopefully. 14:23:02 Zakim, unmute me 14:23:02 bglimm should no longer be muted 14:23:16 Zakim, mute me 14:23:16 bglimm should now be muted 14:23:31 topic: http-rdf-update 14:23:51 AxelPolleres: are changes from Greg incorporated? 14:24:24 Zakim, unmute me 14:24:24 kasei should no longer be muted 14:24:26 chimeze: still some details to work out 14:24:51 kasei: needs more thought than we have time for in this round 14:25:53 AxelPolleres: should we add an editorial note about the issues? 14:26:06 the problem is called out. 14:26:40 PROPOSED: Publish SPARQL 1.1 Uniform HTTP Protocol for Managing RDF Graphs as a Working Draft 14:26:48 +1 14:26:57 Zakim, mute me 14:26:57 kasei should now be muted 14:26:59 s/chimeze/chimezie 14:27:13 +1 14:27:14 0 14:27:15 +1 14:27:22 +1 14:27:26 0 14:27:38 0 (I haven't looked at it) 14:28:05 0 not looked at it either 14:28:07 0 (yet to look at it) 14:28:29 AxelPolleres: maybe we need a dedicated conference for http rdf protocol as well 14:28:33 q+ 14:28:58 Not sure why everyone is abstaining? 14:29:09 Abstaining seems to say that people are unsure whether we ought to publish this as a working draft 14:29:17 that was my intention 14:29:18 WHich is surprising given that no one has raised any serious issues 14:29:21 +1 14:29:27 many people haven't checked it, generally no objection againgst publishing now. 14:29:29 simply haven't had time to read it 14:29:37 I guess I could change mine to +1 by just trusting the reviewers 14:29:37 and were a /big/ user of this technique 14:29:39 chimezie has joined #sparql 14:29:56 AxelPolleres: I think we should publish it now 14:29:59 Right, SteveH, I understand that -- and you're welcome to abstain, but Working Draft just is a pretty low threshold for going forward (compared to, say, Last Call) 14:30:00 They are not all noted. 14:30:09 unless issues not *noted* in the doc. 14:30:40 AxelPolleres: if all issues are not noted, maybe we shouldn't publish now 14:30:50 andy: we can publish, it's not final. 14:31:16 LeeF: We should make sure the issues Andy is referring to do not go overlooked 14:31:45 AxelPolleres: we can publish now and action Chime to collect all issues and start a mail 14:31:57 Axel: propose to publish now and Chime collects issues per mail 14:32:23 ACTION: chime to collect http-protocol issues and mail to list, others respond if you see anything missing 14:32:24 Created ACTION-244 - Collect http-protocol issues and mail to list, others respond if you see anything missing [on Chimezie Ogbuji - due 2010-05-25]. 14:32:43 AxelPolleres: should we have another vote? 14:33:03 PROPOSED: Publish SPARQL 1.1 Uniform HTTP Protocol for Managing RDF Graphs as a Working Draft (with open issues being carried forward on the mailinglist) 14:33:06 +1 14:33:08 +1 14:33:09 +1 14:33:14 +1 14:33:16 +1 14:33:17 +1 14:33:17 +1 14:33:20 +1 14:33:22 +1 14:33:38 RESOLVED: Publish SPARQL 1.1 Uniform HTTP Protocol for Managing RDF Graphs as a Working Draft (with open issues being carried forward on the mailinglist) 14:34:33 topic: update 14:34:33 Zakim, mute me 14:34:33 Chimezie_Ogbuji should now be muted 14:35:09 pgearon: a lot of recent changes 14:35:25 last issue "DELETE WHERE" 14:35:29 ... one issue is DELETE WHERE 14:36:00 ... should be able to resolve in the next day or so, and then have someone review it 14:36:17 OK, if you can point specifically to it :) 14:36:39 ACTION: paul to implement change regarding DELETE WHERE 14:36:39 Created ACTION-245 - Implement change regarding DELETE WHERE [on Paul Gearon - due 2010-05-25]. 14:36:45 I haven't read the replies to my reviews in detail yet - I will in time, but none of it was necessary to hold up publishing IMO 14:36:57 ACTION: Lee to check/approve final version of update 14:36:57 Created ACTION-246 - Check/approve final version of update [on Lee Feigenbaum - due 2010-05-25]. 14:37:16 AxelPolleres: hold off on resolving for pulication until changes are made 14:37:26 will decide about publication next week. 14:37:29 s/pulication/publication 14:38:14 editors, please announce changes decided today on the list when made! 14:39:01 ?? http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-dawg/2010AprJun/0183.html says federated is ready for FPWD 14:39:43 AxelPolleres: concerns with publishing Protocol and Fedrated Query in this round 14:40:33 "... will clarify with Eric, we hold off from publishing right now. " 14:41:06 LeeF: I think we should publish a first public working draft of Federated Query 14:41:16 if procedure to go to FPWD is quick though, let's go ahead. 14:41:53 first we need a short name... 14:42:12 sparql11-federated-query 14:42:27 +1 14:42:31 +1 14:42:31 Looks good ot me 14:42:33 Sure 14:42:35 +1 14:42:35 +1 14:42:36 ok 14:42:45 +1 14:42:48 +1 14:42:52 +1 14:42:56 +1 14:43:15 PROPOSED: Publish http://www.w3.org/2009/sparql/docs/fed/service.xml as FPWD under short name sparql11-federated-query 14:43:25 +1 14:43:28 +1 14:43:48 +1 14:43:49 +1 14:43:52 +1 14:43:55 +1 14:43:56 +1 14:43:57 +1 14:43:57 +1 14:44:04 +1 14:44:13 RESOLVED: Publish http://www.w3.org/2009/sparql/docs/fed/service.xml as FPWD under short name sparql11-federated-query 14:44:48 AxelPolleres: no real changes in Protocol, so no need to publish in this round 14:44:51 No publication of protocol in this round, yees? 14:45:18 topic: issues and schedule 14:45:39 AxelPolleres: negation poll closes issue 29 14:45:49 dcharbon2 has joined #sparql 14:45:50 direction for negation: Include MINUS as a graph pattern operat. Also include NOT EXISTS and EXISTS as FILTERs. 14:45:56 9 votes 14:46:43 ISSUE-29: Resolved via clear majority from http://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35463/Negation/results 14:46:43 ISSUE-29 Should negation be done via a binary operator on subqueries, a binary operator within graph patterns, or a filter+subquery? notes added 14:46:48 close: ISSUE-29 based on http://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35463/Negation/results 14:46:55 -[IPcaller] 14:46:56 trackbot, close ISSUE-29 14:46:57 ISSUE-29 Should negation be done via a binary operator on subqueries, a binary operator within graph patterns, or a filter+subquery? closed 14:47:25 http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-dawg/2010AprJun/0166.html 14:47:30 If anyone wishes to (not that I would encourage it :-), it's in order to make a formal objection to closing this issue now, or to object at any future WG decision point (e.g. moving to Last Call) 14:49:15 AxelPolleres: issue 5, 6, 7, 13 -- what types of queries are allowed as subqueries 14:49:37 +1 for all this (that is to keeping it simple) 14:50:19 PROPOSED: Close ISSUE-5, ISSUE-6, ISSUE-7, and ISSUE-13 with no change, noting that SPARQL 1.1 will only allow SELECT subqueries within the query pattern and within EXISTS FILTERs and HAVING clauses. 14:51:20 PROPOSED: Close ISSUE-5, ISSUE-6, ISSUE-7, and ISSUE-13 with no change, noting that SPARQL 1.1 will only allow SELECT subqueries within the query pattern and within (NOT )EXISTS in FILTERs and HAVING clauses. 14:51:50 q+ 14:51:55 the algebriac evaluation just makes my head spin 14:52:02 ack steveH 14:52:04 AxelPolleres: any problems with EXISTS in HAVING 14:52:30 AndyS: shouldn't be any problems -- HAVING is just a FILTER 14:52:48 +1 14:52:51 +1 14:52:53 +1 14:52:58 0 14:53:06 +1 14:53:06 +1 14:53:07 +1 14:53:08 good for me 14:53:11 +! 14:53:11 +1 14:53:14 ack AndyS 14:53:18 +1 14:53:24 0 14:53:38 OlivierCorby: It is not very elegant to put a graph pattern in a FILTER 14:54:09 AxelPolleres: this ties into resolution of Issue 29 14:54:14 +1 14:54:31 Zakim, unmute 14:54:31 I don't understand 'unmute', chimezie 14:54:36 Zakim, unmute me 14:54:36 Chimezie_Ogbuji should no longer be muted 14:55:10 chimezie: are issues 5, 6, 7, 13 tied to issue 29? 14:56:04 AxelPolleres: (NOT) EXISTS is the only one tied to Issue 29 14:56:48 Lest my comment earlier (re: publishing HTTP update) be misconstrued - there's nothing wrong with abstaining at all, they don't even really need to be justified at all :) 14:57:01 chimezie: proliferation of subqueries can be dangerous 14:58:09 AndyS: nothing special about subqueries -- just allow you to introduce things in the middle of the query 14:59:09 PROPOSED: Close ISSUE-5, ISSUE-6, ISSUE-7, and ISSUE-13 with no change, noting that SPARQL 1.1 will at most allow SELECT subqueries within the query pattern and within (NOT )EXISTS in FILTERs and HAVING clauses. 15:00:25 SteveH: there really is no difference for HAVING and FILTER 15:01:02 I agree with AndyS about HAVING 15:01:49 RESOLVED: Close ISSUE-5, ISSUE-6, ISSUE-7, and ISSUE-13 with no change, noting that SPARQL 1.1 will only allow SELECT subqueries within the query pattern and within (NOT )EXISTS in FILTERs and HAVING clauses. 15:02:33 AxelPolleres: Lee sent out an email for Property Path teleconference 15:02:44 http://doodle.com/z56masysu7afi2a4 15:03:14 We might also add another extra Telecon for http-protocol issues. 15:03:15 bglimm: if you could give me the general idea of how you made lax the fininitess restrictions having already had text for it, would help me with what i need to do 15:03:33 -SteveH 15:03:33 -Chimezie_Ogbuji 15:03:37 -pgearon 15:03:41 -OlivierCorby 15:03:43 -Lee_Feigenbaum 15:03:46 That was "HTTP Update Protocol" 15:03:47 -bglimm 15:03:51 -dcharbon2 15:03:57 -tommik 15:04:01 -kasei 15:04:04 s/http-protocol/http-update-protocol/ 15:04:09 -souri 15:04:10 THanks all! 15:04:11 -MattPerry 15:04:13 AndyS, if you have stuff you want to discuss on phone I have 5 mins 15:04:19 adjourned 15:04:35 rrsagent, make records public 15:04:50 -AxelPolleres 15:04:57 -AndyS 15:04:58 SW_(SPARQL)10:00AM has ended 15:05:00 Attendees were AndyS, OlivierCorby, AxelPolleres, +1.919.332.aaaa, dcharbon2, pgearon, +1.603.897.aabb, kasei, +1.603.897.aacc, +1.603.897.aadd, MattPerry, +035840564aaee, tommik, 15:05:02 ... souri, SteveH, Lee_Feigenbaum, bglimm, Chimezie_Ogbuji, [IPcaller] 15:06:20 or I can bug you via email 15:10:49 steveH, My #1 is sort out negation section. Long term (not this publication), we need to align presentation forms and stuff like that. Saw you comments of state of aggregate formalisms and will wait until it's stable - need to go back because when I read it first time I though that some functions didn't agree with their signature but that could have been my reading so I need to go and check. 15:11:16 Anything you need from me? 15:12:47 SteveH has joined #sparql 15:34:46 OlivierCorby has left #sparql 15:38:12 I would view christian's concern orthogonal... 15:38:23 oops, wrong window :-) 16:34:10 So we are all on the same page, do note that "FILTER NOT EXISTS{?s ?p ?o}" is legal syntax (and always has been) because FILTER can omit the () on built-ins and functions. In SPARQL 1.0, FILTER regex(?x, "str") and "FILTER my:function(?x)" are legal syntax. 16:35:01 AndyS, that matches my understanding (though I never write it like that personally :) ) 16:36:35 Cool - just want to ensure we all understand the details and no surprised WG members later on. Big spec, lots of detail. 16:36:42 and busy people. 16:37:22 yup 16:37:29 i'm sure there will be surprises despite our best intentions :) 17:07:36 :-) merely reducing the number - not to zero. 17:15:20 AxelPolleres has left #sparql 18:29:28 dcharbon2_ has joined #sparql 21:20:39 SteveH has joined #sparql 21:40:37 AndyS has joined #sparql