IRC log of sparql on 2010-08-10

Timestamps are in UTC.

13:59:52 [RRSAgent]
RRSAgent has joined #sparql
13:59:52 [RRSAgent]
logging to
13:59:54 [ivan]
some are not
13:59:54 [trackbot]
RRSAgent, make logs world
13:59:54 [Zakim]
Zakim has joined #sparql
13:59:56 [trackbot]
Zakim, this will be 77277
13:59:57 [trackbot]
Meeting: SPARQL Working Group Teleconference
13:59:57 [trackbot]
Date: 10 August 2010
13:59:57 [Zakim]
ok, trackbot; I see SW_(SPARQL)10:00AM scheduled to start in 1 minute
14:00:05 [LeeF]
zakim, this will be SPARQL
14:00:05 [Zakim]
ok, LeeF, I see SW_(SPARQL)10:00AM already started
14:00:07 [ivan]
AndyS: you are right
14:00:07 [LeeF]
Chair: LeeF
14:00:18 [LeeF]
14:00:22 [Zakim]
14:00:23 [ivan]
it is just a comment that has to be handled as.... comments:-)
14:00:32 [bglimm]
stupid phone lines, all circuits are busy now
14:00:40 [AndyS]
zakim, [IPCaller] is me
14:00:40 [Zakim]
+AndyS; got it
14:00:40 [NickH]
zakim: who is on the call?
14:00:45 [SteveH_]
bglimm, I got the last line I guess, sorry!
14:00:46 [Zakim]
14:00:47 [Zakim]
+ +1.617.245.aaaa
14:00:47 [Zakim]
14:00:53 [ivan]
zakim, dial ivan-voip
14:00:53 [Zakim]
ok, ivan; the call is being made
14:00:55 [Zakim]
14:01:11 [LeeF]
zakim, who's on the phone?
14:01:11 [Zakim]
On the phone I see ??P0, Garlik, AndyS, pgearon, +1.617.245.aaaa, Sandro, Ivan
14:01:20 [LeeF]
zakim, aaaa is me
14:01:20 [Zakim]
+LeeF; got it
14:01:21 [AndyS]
NickH -- try "zakim, who is on the phone"
14:01:24 [SteveH]
Zakim, Garlik is temporarily me
14:01:24 [Zakim]
+SteveH; got it
14:01:31 [NickH]
zakim, who is here?
14:01:31 [Zakim]
On the phone I see ??P0, SteveH, AndyS, pgearon, LeeF, Sandro, Ivan
14:01:32 [Zakim]
On IRC I see RRSAgent, SteveH, AxelPolleres, NickH, bglimm, LeeF, AndyS, ivan, karl, iv_an_ru, pgearon, sandro, trackbot, kasei
14:01:42 [sandro]
sandro has changed the topic to: Agenda:
14:02:07 [NickH]
Zakim, ??P0 is me
14:02:07 [Zakim]
+NickH; got it
14:02:13 [ivan]
zakim, mute me
14:02:23 [Zakim]
Ivan should now be muted
14:02:27 [ivan]
just a minute
14:02:31 [Zakim]
14:02:42 [LeeF]
topic: admin
14:02:50 [bglimm]
Zakim, mute me
14:02:54 [LeeF]
PROPOSED: Approve minutes at
14:02:59 [Zakim]
bglimm should now be muted
14:03:20 [ivan]
zakim, unmute me
14:03:20 [Zakim]
Ivan should no longer be muted
14:03:40 [Zakim]
14:04:05 [AndyS]
1/ not typing, 2/ muted
14:04:12 [ivan]
scribenick: ivan
14:04:37 [ivan]
lee: propose to approve the minutes for last week
14:04:42 [ivan]
... carried once
14:04:47 [ivan]
.... carried twice
14:04:48 [LeeF]
RESOLVED: Approve minutes at
14:04:49 [AxelPolleres]
14:04:51 [pgearon]
14:04:58 [ivan]
Topic: next meeting
14:05:00 [LeeF]
Next regular meeting: 2010-08-17 @ 15:00 UK / 10:00 EDT
14:05:05 [ivan]
next week, same time and place
14:05:10 [AndyS]
My regrets for next week's meeting.
14:05:22 [ivan]
ivan: I am not 100% sure to be around next week
14:05:23 [chimezie]
chimezie has joined #sparql
14:05:27 [AxelPolleres]
think Alex sent regrets (on vacation)
14:05:34 [LeeF]
Regrets: Nico, Greg, Alex, Chime
14:05:36 [chimezie]
Zakim, what is the passcode?
14:05:36 [Zakim]
the conference code is 77277 (tel:+1.617.761.6200 tel:+ tel:+44.203.318.0479), chimezie
14:06:10 [ivan]
Topic: go through open issues
14:06:18 [Zakim]
+ +1.216.636.aabb
14:06:22 [ivan]
Lee: there are some issues we may want to close, see the agenda
14:06:31 [chimezie]
Zakim, +1.216.636.aabb is me
14:06:31 [Zakim]
+chimezie; got it
14:06:40 [AxelPolleres]
chime, sandro, could either of you look into and draft a reply?
14:07:05 [ivan]
lee: any other topic for the agenda
14:07:12 [sandro]
AxelPolleres, I don't think that should be me, no.
14:07:12 [chimezie]
yeah, i was looking at that
14:07:18 [ivan]
AxelPolleres: an additional comment from timbl, we may want to reply
14:07:36 [ivan]
lee: it is better if chime looks at it, and see if there is a wg attention he may bring it up on the list
14:08:11 [AxelPolleres]
I'll put chime responsible on the comments page, thanks!
14:08:16 [LeeF]
topic: Issue Rodeo
14:08:36 [LeeF]
14:08:42 [chimezie]
Zakim, mute me
14:08:42 [Zakim]
chimezie should now be muted
14:08:48 [ivan]
start with issue 48
14:08:54 [LeeF]
14:08:54 [trackbot]
ISSUE-48 -- Is DELETE too verbose? -- open
14:08:54 [trackbot]
14:09:04 [sandro]
no description. :-/
14:09:25 [ivan]
lee: issue 48 not repeating the pattern when the only thing you want is to delete a pattern
14:09:35 [LeeF]
14:09:47 [ivan]
... the decision a few month ago was to have delete where {...}
14:09:58 [ivan]
... we already discussed it and resolved it
14:10:02 [LeeF]
PROPOSED: Resolve ISSUE-48 via current DELETE WHERE { tempalte } abbreviation as in
14:10:03 [ivan]
... the proposal is to close the issue
14:10:15 [AxelPolleres]
14:10:24 [SteveH]
14:10:24 [ivan]
14:10:27 [ivan]
14:10:31 [pgearon]
14:10:32 [chimezie]
14:10:47 [NickH]
14:10:52 [sandro]
14:10:56 [AndyS]
14:10:56 [bglimm]
14:10:57 [LeeF]
RESOLVED: Resolve ISSUE-48 via current DELETE WHERE { tempalte } abbreviation as in
14:11:06 [LeeF]
trackbot, close ISSUE-48
14:11:06 [trackbot]
ISSUE-48 Is DELETE too verbose? closed
14:11:11 [ivan]
14:11:13 [LeeF]
14:11:13 [trackbot]
ISSUE-49 -- Is a graph an information resource -- open
14:11:13 [trackbot]
14:11:24 [chimezie]
Zakim, unmute me
14:11:24 [Zakim]
chimezie should no longer be muted
14:11:33 [ivan]
lee: this is something kjetill raised a while ago, chime added section 8 in the draft
14:11:40 [sandro]
link to section 8 ?
14:11:42 [ivan]
... it explaines http-range
14:11:46 [LeeF]
PROPOSED: Close ISSUE-49 based on the current text in Section 8 at
14:11:48 [ivan]
14:12:09 [ivan]
lee: chime, is that correct?
14:12:14 [ivan]
chimezie: yes, it does
14:12:32 [ivan]
sandro: I have not had the time to read it
14:12:51 [ivan]
... is the graph an inform resource
14:12:58 [ivan]
chimezie: yes it is
14:13:12 [ivan]
lee: sandro would you want to return to that later?
14:13:15 [ivan]
sandro: yes
14:13:15 [AxelPolleres]
14:13:19 [LeeF]
14:13:19 [trackbot]
ISSUE-51 -- Shall dataset clauses be allowed in SPARQL/update? -- open
14:13:19 [trackbot]
14:13:47 [ivan]
Lee: how do you define a dataset for a graph pattern matching in update
14:14:00 [ivan]
.... we spent a lot of time on that, including a task force
14:14:16 [ivan]
... the document has the text the tf agreed on
14:14:25 [LeeF]
PROPOSED: Close ISSUE-51 based on the current design of WITH/USING/USING NAMED to specify the RDF dataset for an Update operation
14:14:57 [ivan]
14:15:25 [ivan]
lee: paul, from your point of view, this is stable, isn't it?
14:15:32 [ivan]
pgearon: yes
14:15:42 [LeeF]
RESOLVED: Close ISSUE-51 based on the current design of WITH/USING/USING NAMED to specify the RDF dataset for an Update operation
14:15:48 [LeeF]
trackbot, close ISSUE-51
14:15:48 [trackbot]
ISSUE-51 Shall dataset clauses be allowed in SPARQL/update? closed
14:15:55 [LeeF]
14:15:55 [trackbot]
ISSUE-52 -- Do we need the availability of an unnamed graph in SD? -- open
14:15:55 [trackbot]
14:16:01 [sandro]
Lee okay to return to 49 at any point now.
14:16:21 [AndyS]
Is it ever not available?
14:16:24 [ivan]
lee: discussing this without greg is difficult
14:16:50 [ivan]
lee: we will come back to that
14:16:59 [ivan]
lee: back to issue 49,
14:17:16 [ivan]
sandro: the text in the draft, I do not disagree with anything it says
14:17:17 [LeeF]
PROPOSED: Close ISSUE-49 based on the current text in Section 8 at
14:17:22 [ivan]
14:17:34 [AndyS]
14:17:45 [LeeF]
RESOLVED: Close ISSUE-49 based on the current text in Section 8 at, AndyS abstraining
14:17:48 [sandro]
+1 the text isn't perfect :-] but it's good enough and not worth more debate
14:17:50 [ivan]
member:trackbot, close ISSUE-49
14:17:52 [LeeF]
14:18:00 [chimezie]
Sandro: if you have feedback on how to clarify the text would be welcome :)
14:18:00 [ivan]
trackbot, close ISSUE-49
14:18:00 [trackbot]
ISSUE-49 Is a graph an information resource closed
14:18:16 [LeeF]
14:18:16 [trackbot]
ISSUE-55 -- Can/how can a separator string be supplied to the GROUP_CONCAT aggregate? -- open
14:18:16 [trackbot]
14:18:48 [ivan]
lee: the decision is to add a syntax to define the extra separator character
14:18:53 [ivan]
14:18:56 [LeeF]
PROPOSED: Close ISSUE-55 based on the use of a scalar argument SEPARATOR=";" as in
14:19:05 [LeeF]
ack ivan
14:19:26 [LeeF]
ivan: when I looked at the text itself, i realized that GROUP_CONCAT Is almost not defined in the document - I had to go to a mysql document to find out what it means
14:19:34 [LeeF]
... think it could use more editorial explanation
14:19:50 [ivan]
lee: steve, is it on your radar
14:20:04 [ivan]
steve: it needs more text
14:20:18 [ivan]
... technically it is correct
14:20:43 [ivan]
14:21:07 [AndyS]
14:21:16 [LeeF]
RESOLVED: Close ISSUE-55 based on the use of a scalar argument SEPARATOR=";" as in, LeeF abstaining
14:21:17 [SteveH]
14:21:19 [bglimm]
14:21:25 [LeeF]
trackbot, close ISSUE-55
14:21:25 [trackbot]
ISSUE-55 Can/how can a separator string be supplied to the GROUP_CONCAT aggregate? closed
14:21:32 [LeeF]
14:21:32 [trackbot]
ISSUE-56 -- Does HTTP PATCH affect either the SPARQL Protocol or the SPARQL Uniform etc. HTTP etc. Protocol? -- open
14:21:32 [trackbot]
14:21:50 [LeeF]
PROPOSED: Close ISSUE-56 based on the text at
14:22:02 [ivan]
14:22:12 [AndyS]
14:22:33 [LeeF]
ack ivan
14:22:35 [ivan]
ivan: chime, did timbl's comment address/affect this part?
14:23:45 [LeeF]
chimezie: we might want to wait - i have one open question - if you direct a PATCH at a graph IRI it suggests that you are only manipulating that graph, but SPARQL Update can affect other graphs
14:24:01 [LeeF]
... you might return a status code like Method Not Supported, but it's uncertain
14:24:11 [LeeF]
ack AndyS
14:24:26 [LeeF]
AndyS: What is the significance of "RECOMMENDED" in capital text?
14:24:49 [LeeF]
chimezie: RFC 2119 allows RECOMMENDED to be used in plcae of SHOULD
14:25:04 [LeeF]
... i use RECOMMENDED where I did not want the same force of SHOULD
14:25:09 [ivan]
chimezie: I use recommended when i did not want to use the same force than should
14:25:33 [ivan]
AndyS: then i am not very happy with the text; patch is not widely used and implemented yet
14:25:51 [ivan]
lee: it is also not good to use rfc terms in an informal sections
14:25:55 [SteveH]
I'm not sure I agree that "few" systems support PATCH, libcurl does, and many things are based on that
14:26:07 [SteveH]
14:26:24 [ivan]
AndyS: we should then make it a bit weaker, we should be noting that _if_ it is used, it has a particular meaning
14:26:27 [SteveH]
14:26:36 [ivan]
... recommending should is quite strong
14:26:52 [ivan]
... that means that is the way it should happen unless you have good reason to do something else
14:26:56 [ivan]
chimezie: ok, understood
14:27:07 [LeeF]
14:27:10 [AndyS]
14:27:15 [LeeF]
ack AndyS
14:27:55 [ivan]
AndyS: is this discussion on sparql protocol rather than an http protocol issue
14:28:24 [ivan]
chimezie: we did not reach a conclusion on that, there was then an additional comment why we did not have that
14:28:35 [ivan]
... that is the reason why it is informative
14:28:56 [ivan]
AndyS: that is confusing because people will and do use PUT with sparql update requests
14:29:04 [LeeF]
14:29:24 [ivan]
chimezie: a post 'here' and a post for other protocols will be different, but there is an ambiguity in general that we have to document
14:30:09 [ivan]
LeeF: at some point we will have to find dedicated time to look at the protocol and define the relationships more exactly
14:30:26 [ivan]
... maybe an overview document that axel and i work on will have to clarify that
14:31:10 [LeeF]
ACTION: Lee to make sure that the relationship between SPARQL protocol and HTTP protocol is clearly laid out before Last Call
14:31:10 [trackbot]
Created ACTION-290 - Make sure that the relationship between SPARQL protocol and HTTP protocol is clearly laid out before Last Call [on Lee Feigenbaum - due 2010-08-17].
14:32:09 [ivan]
SteveH: what was the reason we split the two documents
14:32:16 [AndyS]
14:32:25 [ivan]
lee: we never had a strong discussion on why we have them separate
14:32:31 [pgearon]
14:32:34 [ivan]
... the http was a pretty new document
14:33:02 [pgearon]
14:33:06 [ivan]
chimezie: I recall that as a major motivation, we also wanted to have a strong RESTFUL constraint
14:33:14 [ivan]
SteveH: riiiight:-(
14:33:37 [ivan]
... the protocol document with update is restful...
14:33:46 [ivan]
... it was just an idle thought
14:33:53 [ivan]
lee: it is still something we can consider
14:34:05 [ivan]
... to define the overall relationships between the two
14:34:07 [ivan]
... we will consider it
14:34:22 [ivan]
lee: the remaining 3 issues remain open
14:34:53 [ivan]
... 57 is close to a resolution, leaning towards the features with other but we backed off
14:35:22 [ivan]
... various implementers took actions to send descriptions to the mailing list, and I have an actions with test cases, that is not yet done
14:35:45 [ivan]
... issue 58, register mime type for sparql
14:36:03 [ivan]
sandro: what we do is to add some text into the document
14:36:26 [ivan]
... from the process perspective it can go anywhere, it has to be a rec track one and that is it
14:36:30 [AndyS]
14:36:35 [LeeF]
14:36:37 [ivan]
lee: the query one is in the query document
14:36:38 [AxelPolleres]
had two more potential issues not sure whether we need to add them here... but also don't want to forget them
14:36:56 [ivan]
lee: it is probably the update document then
14:37:09 [ivan]
sandro: it is corrct
14:37:18 [ivan]
14:37:59 [ivan]
sandro: I will send a mail to paul with a possible alternative formatting
14:38:21 [ivan]
pgearon: I would have thought it should go in a document that has anything to do with protocol
14:38:28 [AndyS]
MIME type is related to syntax/language
14:38:28 [ivan]
lee: we had it in query...
14:38:33 [sandro]
Here's how I did the RIF one, following the IETF formatting more:
14:38:51 [ivan]
lee: and then?
14:39:29 [ivan]
sandro: once it is published (probably in LC), someone has to raise on the ietf list, and when we get to rec, there is another process to do
14:39:37 [AxelPolleres]
q+ to ask about two additional (protocol related) issues
14:39:45 [ivan]
lee: paul, if it is o.k. with you, I would prefer you'd put it into the update doc
14:39:52 [LeeF]
ACTION: Paul to work MIME type registration information into SPARQL Update document based on Sandro's suggestion for formatting etc.
14:39:52 [trackbot]
Created ACTION-291 - Work MIME type registration information into SPARQL Update document based on Sandro's suggestion for formatting etc. [on Paul Gearon - due 2010-08-17].
14:40:00 [ivan]
pgearon: the more places it appears in the better is, no problems
14:40:03 [LeeF]
14:40:07 [LeeF]
ack AxelPolleres
14:40:07 [Zakim]
AxelPolleres, you wanted to ask about two additional (protocol related) issues
14:40:30 [LeeF]
14:40:44 [ivan]
AxelPolleres: I had additional problems and I wonder whether they should go to issue list
14:41:01 [ivan]
... do we need a return format for update?
14:41:15 [ivan]
... if we simply get yes/no than we may be fine with the old one
14:41:20 [LeeF]
ISSUE: What does the response to a SPARQL Update request look like in SPARQL protocol?
14:41:20 [trackbot]
Created ISSUE-60 - What does the response to a SPARQL Update request look like in SPARQL protocol? ; please complete additional details at .
14:41:28 [AndyS]
I had assumed the result body of an update would be empty.
14:41:29 [ivan]
... the other question where we would say something about transactions
14:41:34 [LeeF]
14:41:37 [ivan]
... where do we put it
14:41:45 [ivan]
... probably the protocol document
14:42:16 [ivan]
lee: my gut feeling is that the content of a response will be empty for update, but it is better to have a formal issue on that
14:42:27 [ivan]
AxelPolleres: we had discussion about conveying additional infos
14:42:30 [SteveH]
would like to put informative stuff in there, like number of triples added etc
14:42:32 [pgearon]
http 200/400/500 are the most likely responses
14:42:55 [pgearon]
oh, and 401
14:42:58 [ivan]
lee: the other one probably just need the editors to take an action on documenting adomicity
14:43:03 [SteveH]
14:43:17 [SteveH]
and 201
14:43:22 [LeeF]
ACTION: Lee to make sure text on transactionality/concurrency gets added to protocol document
14:43:22 [trackbot]
Created ACTION-292 - Make sure text on transactionality/concurrency gets added to protocol document [on Lee Feigenbaum - due 2010-08-17].
14:43:23 [SteveH]
oh, only for PUT
14:43:27 [AndyS]
any HTTP response code
14:43:44 [SteveH]
+1 to AndyS
14:44:12 [chimezie]
ACTION: chimezie to modify HTTP Update document to reduce language regarding PATCH and to not use RFC 2119 language
14:44:12 [trackbot]
Created ACTION-293 - Modify HTTP Update document to reduce language regarding PATCH and to not use RFC 2119 language [on Chimezie Ogbuji - due 2010-08-17].
14:44:13 [ivan]
lee: the question was whether we would like to have a shortcut for update; we are not yet ready to close that
14:44:17 [AxelPolleres]
can one add additional information to the success responses? e.g. if the endpoint wants to provide some additional information such as "300 triples added" ?
14:44:39 [Zakim]
14:45:00 [ivan]
Topic: document publishing status/plans
14:45:21 [ivan]
Lee: how far away are we from a pretty stable document
14:45:29 [Zakim]
14:45:30 [ivan]
... do we need one more publication before LC
14:45:37 [SteveH]
Zakim, Garlik is temporarily me
14:45:37 [Zakim]
+SteveH; got it
14:45:53 [ivan]
... if the document is not yet ready for that, we may need an in-depth review
14:46:13 [ivan]
... looking at editorials as well as content wise
14:46:17 [ivan]
14:46:42 [LeeF]
ack ivan
14:47:37 [ivan]
lee: query?
14:48:16 [ivan]
SteveH: we need one more round before LC; there is quite a bit more content to be added
14:48:38 [ivan]
AndyS: yes, I agree, it would be a good idea to have a non-lc publication
14:48:57 [ivan]
... i have been working on the property path part, that has to be moved across to the query document
14:49:24 [ivan]
... the main thing to move sections into the algebra, and this has to be quite slick before lc
14:49:43 [ivan]
lee: do you want to move the pp into the document before next publication
14:49:46 [ivan]
AndyS: yes
14:50:06 [SteveH]
prefer to wait til after changes
14:50:21 [ivan]
lee: do you want a comprehensive review now or only after things are done that you want to do
14:50:37 [ivan]
AndyS: i need a really good one for the lc
14:50:53 [ivan]
... and there is only that much review people can do
14:51:03 [ivan]
14:51:07 [LeeF]
ack ivan
14:51:59 [ivan]
lee: update?
14:52:14 [AxelPolleres]
I think we should have at least one new reviewer, obviously previous reviewers should also be welcome to give further comments.
14:52:25 [ivan]
pgearon: a few things have to go in, that has to be done before we have a review
14:53:15 [LeeF]
potential across the board approach:
14:53:26 [LeeF]
1) Editors put into documents all missing pieces
14:53:36 [LeeF]
2) Publish documents as public WD
14:53:47 [LeeF]
3) Begin in-group comprehensive reviews of all documents
14:53:56 [LeeF]
4) Incorporate review changes into Last Call-ready editors drafts
14:54:06 [LeeF]
5) Publish Last Call
14:54:14 [ivan]
6) be happy
14:54:25 [AndyS]
Will next pub round [*] include tests?
14:54:38 [bglimm]
14:55:05 [ivan]
lee: birte, chime, are you happy with that?
14:55:23 [ivan]
chimezie: i could use some community discussion before publication
14:55:24 [AxelPolleres]
AndyS, I think we should include tests.
14:55:24 [bglimm]
Zakim, unmute me
14:55:24 [Zakim]
bglimm should no longer be muted
14:55:32 [ivan]
... eg, timbl's comment
14:55:57 [ivan]
... or do you plan to have comment incorporated before publications
14:56:36 [ivan]
... if you could distill tim's comment before next call, and see what reactions we get also on the swig list
14:56:50 [ivan]
chimezie: if I can write down the issues for next week, that would be good
14:57:13 [ivan]
LeeF: the wg has to have a quick turn around; ie, the answers should come from the wg
14:58:25 [ivan]
--- adjourned ---
14:58:39 [Zakim]
14:58:47 [ivan]
zakim, drop me
14:58:47 [Zakim]
Ivan is being disconnected
14:58:47 [bglimm]
14:58:48 [Zakim]
14:58:49 [NickH]
14:58:49 [AxelPolleres]
thanks all
14:58:51 [Zakim]
14:58:51 [Zakim]
14:58:52 [Zakim]
14:58:54 [Zakim]
14:58:56 [Zakim]
14:58:58 [Zakim]
14:59:00 [Zakim]
14:59:02 [Zakim]
14:59:04 [Zakim]
SW_(SPARQL)10:00AM has ended
14:59:06 [Zakim]
Attendees were AndyS, pgearon, +1.617.245.aaaa, Sandro, Ivan, LeeF, SteveH, NickH, bglimm, AxelPolleres, chimezie
15:00:08 [SteveH]
SteveH has joined #sparql
15:00:36 [AxelPolleres]
AxelPolleres has left #sparql
15:06:26 [bglimm]
bglimm has joined #sparql
15:07:34 [bglimm_]
bglimm_ has joined #sparql
15:27:02 [NickH]
NickH has joined #sparql
15:28:19 [bglimm]
bglimm has joined #sparql
16:46:39 [LeeF]
sandro, (or anyone else), do you happen to know of an existing TODO-list or task-oriented ontology?
16:47:59 [sandro]
I don't, know.
16:49:11 [LeeF]
Are you making fun of my extra comma? :p
16:49:23 [sandro]
16:49:24 [sandro]
16:49:29 [sandro]
just typing very badly
16:49:34 [LeeF]
16:51:59 [SteveH_]
SteveH_ has joined #sparql
17:26:27 [Zakim]
Zakim has left #sparql
17:43:05 [SteveH]
SteveH has joined #sparql