IRC log of sparql on 2010-09-14

Timestamps are in UTC.

13:59:18 [RRSAgent]
RRSAgent has joined #sparql
13:59:18 [RRSAgent]
logging to http://www.w3.org/2010/09/14-sparql-irc
13:59:33 [Zakim]
Zakim has joined #sparql
13:59:57 [kasei]
Zakim, this is sparql
14:00:02 [AxelPolleres]
trackbot, start meeting
14:00:04 [trackbot]
RRSAgent, make logs world
14:00:05 [Zakim]
ok, kasei; that matches SW_(SPARQL)10:00AM
14:00:06 [trackbot]
Zakim, this will be 77277
14:00:07 [trackbot]
Meeting: SPARQL Working Group Teleconference
14:00:07 [trackbot]
Date: 14 September 2010
14:00:11 [Zakim]
+ +33.4.92.38.aaaa
14:00:15 [Zakim]
ok, trackbot; I see SW_(SPARQL)10:00AM scheduled to start now
14:00:18 [AxelPolleres]
chair: Axel Polleres
14:00:24 [kasei]
Zakim, who is on the phone?
14:00:26 [OlivierCorby]
Zakim, aaaa is me
14:00:33 [Zakim]
I notice SW_(SPARQL)10:00AM has restarted
14:00:33 [AxelPolleres]
agenda: http://www.w3.org/2009/sparql/wiki/Agenda-2010-09-14
14:00:35 [Zakim]
On the phone I see AxelPolleres, kasei, +33.4.92.38.aaaa
14:00:39 [Zakim]
+OlivierCorby; got it
14:00:41 [Zakim]
+??P18
14:01:00 [kasei]
scribenick: kasei
14:01:00 [AxelPolleres]
scribe: Greg Williams
14:01:07 [ivan]
zakim, dial ivan-voip
14:01:07 [Zakim]
ok, ivan; the call is being made
14:01:09 [Zakim]
+Ivan
14:01:12 [AndyS]
zakim, ??P18 is me
14:01:12 [Zakim]
+AndyS; got it
14:01:26 [AxelPolleres]
Zakim, who is on the phone?
14:01:32 [Zakim]
On the phone I see AxelPolleres, kasei, OlivierCorby, AndyS, Ivan
14:01:37 [Zakim]
+ +1.603.897.aabb
14:01:48 [MattPerry]
zakim, aabb is me
14:02:09 [Zakim]
+MattPerry; got it
14:02:53 [Souri]
Souri has joined #sparql
14:03:02 [kasei]
topic: admin
14:03:10 [AxelPolleres]
PROPOSED: Approve minutes at http://www.w3.org/2009/sparql/meeting/2010-09-07
14:03:26 [kasei]
AxelPolleres: minutes from last time?
14:03:40 [AxelPolleres]
RESOLVED: Approve minutes at http://www.w3.org/2009/sparql/meeting/2010-09-07
14:04:22 [Zakim]
+??P42
14:04:22 [kasei]
... next meeting. Both chairs gone next week.
14:04:28 [Zakim]
+ +1.617.245.aacc
14:04:28 [kasei]
... need to find a chair.
14:04:30 [Zakim]
+ +1.603.897.aadd
14:04:36 [Zakim]
-??P42
14:04:37 [AlexPassant]
Zakim, ??P42 is me
14:04:41 [kasei]
ivan: sandro may be around, but unsure.
14:04:44 [MattPerry]
I could scribe next time
14:04:46 [AxelPolleres]
ACTION: Axel to clarify chairing next time
14:04:47 [trackbot]
Created ACTION-309 - Clarify chairing next time [on Axel Polleres - due 2010-09-21].
14:05:13 [Zakim]
+[IPcaller]
14:05:13 [kasei]
topic: status of documents
14:05:13 [ivan]
s/unsure/I am not sure/
14:05:39 [Zakim]
I already had ??P42 as Guest P42 26632, AlexPassant
14:05:44 [kasei]
AxelPolleres: which documents are ready for publication. what issues remain?
14:05:47 [ivan]
q+
14:05:50 [kasei]
... want to assign reviewers.
14:05:55 [kasei]
... start with query document.
14:06:16 [LeeF]
Reviews by end of this call? :-)
14:06:20 [kasei]
ivan: good to know the times involved in reviewing
14:06:41 [Zakim]
-[IPcaller]
14:06:47 [ivan]
ack ivan
14:06:49 [Zakim]
+??P33
14:06:50 [LeeF]
zakim, aacc is me
14:07:00 [kasei]
AxelPolleres: Query document. Andy sent a list of which sections are ready for review.
14:07:06 [Zakim]
+LeeF; got it
14:07:09 [kasei]
AndyS: sent list of sections that had changed from 1.0
14:07:22 [AndyS]
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-dawg/2010JulSep/0376.html
14:07:58 [ivan]
q+
14:08:02 [kasei]
AxelPolleres: which sections should we assign for review? Can we review some sections now?
14:08:25 [kasei]
... are there stable parts reviewable now?
14:08:39 [kasei]
AndyS: thought we were aiming for working draft publication out. If so, then the whole document is reviewable.
14:08:43 [Zakim]
+ +44.186.528.aaee
14:08:52 [bglimm]
Zakim, +44.186.528.aaee is me
14:08:52 [Zakim]
+bglimm; got it
14:09:13 [kasei]
AxelPolleres: with query, we probably need another WD publication. will anything happen before we publish/review?
14:09:30 [ivan]
ack ivan
14:09:44 [kasei]
ivan: I thought we were talking about LC reviews.
14:09:50 [bglimm]
Zakim, mute me
14:09:50 [Zakim]
bglimm should now be muted
14:09:54 [kasei]
... now I hear something different. what are we talking about?
14:10:21 [AxelPolleres]
http://www.w3.org/2009/sparql/meeting/2010-08-24#publication_schedule
14:10:29 [AxelPolleres]
http://www.w3.org/2009/sparql/meeting/2010-08-10#document_publishing_status__2f_plans
14:10:56 [kasei]
AxelPolleres: I understood in our meeting on Aug 24 that we suggested the way forward is to have editors put missing pieces in, go with one more round of WD
14:11:16 [kasei]
... we'll incorporate reviews from outside.
14:11:23 [kasei]
... try to get the documents out, and in parallel get LC ready.
14:11:29 [kasei]
... is that just my understanding?
14:11:58 [kasei]
ivan: that's fine if it's the plan. If we are looking for LC reviewers, then this should happen only when the whole document is ready.
14:12:08 [kasei]
... reviewing just one part of a document should not happen.
14:13:01 [kasei]
AxelPolleres: idea was to have missing pieces in [by now?], but that hasn't happened yet.
14:13:13 [kasei]
... could have WG reviewers for the parts that are done.
14:13:28 [kasei]
... want an indication of what parts are finished, what's unstable.
14:13:46 [kasei]
... the list AndyS sent around is what has changed, not what is ready.
14:13:57 [kasei]
AndyS: indication to people what sections are relevant.
14:14:05 [kasei]
AxelPolleres: can you provide a list of what's ready/stable?
14:15:00 [kasei]
... for going forward, we can assign reviewers to go over it in the next 1/2 weeks?
14:15:27 [kasei]
AndyS: isn't clear to me if the reviews right now are for LC or just WD?
14:15:47 [kasei]
AxelPolleres: can we get 2 people to review document in current state?
14:15:52 [kasei]
I can
14:15:55 [MattPerry]
I can too
14:16:08 [kasei]
AxelPolleres: Greg and Matt will review.
14:16:39 [kasei]
AxelPolleres: looking for having the documents ready to publish. we should also think about the date we want to publish.
14:16:53 [kasei]
... is one week possible?
14:16:59 [MattPerry]
2 week is better
14:17:03 [kasei]
I can probably do 1, but 2 better.
14:17:12 [kasei]
... let's discuss in 2 weeks.
14:17:30 [kasei]
... we'll try for 2 weeks for all documents.
14:17:55 [AxelPolleres]
ACTION: greg to review queryt for WD publication
14:17:55 [trackbot]
Created ACTION-310 - Review queryt for WD publication [on Gregory Williams - due 2010-09-21].
14:18:10 [AxelPolleres]
ACTION: matt to review query for WD publication
14:18:10 [trackbot]
Sorry, couldn't find user - matt
14:18:26 [kasei]
AxelPolleres: Update document.
14:18:49 [kasei]
AlexPassant: the formal model is not complete yet.
14:18:55 [kasei]
... review could start by Monday next week.
14:19:10 [kasei]
... formal model hasn't been reviewed yet. maybe 2 reviewers plus one just for the model.
14:19:34 [kasei]
AxelPolleres: is the document ready from your point of view? are all issues fixed?
14:19:51 [kasei]
AlexPassant: no, not yet. issues will be ready by Monday. will be able to say on monday if ready for LC or if more time is needed.
14:20:15 [kasei]
AxelPolleres: we should have at least some reviews to get out a WD.
14:20:30 [kasei]
... AlexPassant can inform reviewers when it is ready for review.
14:20:48 [kasei]
... volunteers for reviewing update?
14:20:51 [AxelPolleres]
ACTION: axel to review update
14:20:51 [trackbot]
Could not create new action (failed to parse response from server) - please contact sysreq with the details of what happened.
14:20:51 [trackbot]
Could not create new action (unparseable data in server response: local variable 'd' referenced before assignment) - please contact sysreq with the details of what happened.
14:21:23 [AxelPolleres]
ACTION: AndyS to review update formal model
14:21:23 [trackbot]
Created ACTION-312 - Review update formal model [on Andy Seaborne - due 2010-09-21].
14:21:36 [AxelPolleres]
ACTION: axel to review Update
14:21:36 [trackbot]
Created ACTION-313 - Review Update [on Axel Polleres - due 2010-09-21].
14:21:57 [AndyS]
(assumes Alex has had time to add more formal model)
14:22:00 [AxelPolleres]
ACTION: alex to inform andy/axel for review readyness
14:22:00 [trackbot]
Created ACTION-314 - Inform andy/axel for review readyness [on Alexandre Passant - due 2010-09-21].
14:22:12 [kasei]
AxelPolleres: Entailment document
14:22:15 [bglimm]
Zakim, unmute me
14:22:20 [Zakim]
bglimm should no longer be muted
14:22:28 [kasei]
bglimm: the document is ready for review.
14:22:36 [ivan]
q+
14:22:40 [kasei]
... want to add example for RDF-based semantics, but that's an informative section so doesn't require waiting.
14:23:07 [kasei]
AxelPolleres: made progress with sandro on issues around RIF.
14:23:26 [kasei]
... progress, but will not have it in final shape for this round of WD.
14:23:42 [kasei]
... should mark these points in the document, and will have to review again before LC.
14:23:58 [kasei]
... can we assign reviewers for OWL and RDF parts?
14:24:19 [kasei]
... does Chime still have open issues in the document?
14:24:31 [kasei]
ivan: still have to agree on URIs for the namespace document.
14:25:04 [kasei]
... one issue is rdf import. another is what URI to use for entailment.
14:25:15 [kasei]
... not sure where we are on that.
14:25:22 [ivan]
q-
14:25:25 [kasei]
... everything leads to Chime.
14:26:00 [AxelPolleres]
ACTION: Birte to follow up with Chime on review readiness of entailment
14:26:01 [trackbot]
Created ACTION-315 - Follow up with Chime on review readiness of entailment [on Birte Glimm - due 2010-09-21].
14:26:23 [OlivierCorby]
I can review
14:26:28 [kasei]
AxelPolleres: does it make sense to look for entailment reviewers, to be ready whenever issues are dealt with?
14:26:48 [AxelPolleres]
ACTION: Olivier to review entailment whenever he gets ok from Chime/Birte
14:26:48 [trackbot]
Created ACTION-316 - Review entailment whenever he gets ok from Chime/Birte [on Olivier Corby - due 2010-09-21].
14:26:57 [kasei]
... Olivier can review. Anybody else?
14:27:14 [kasei]
... Zakim can pick a victim.
14:28:00 [kasei]
AxelPolleres: need reviewers from the WG.
14:28:03 [AxelPolleres]
Zakim, pick a victim
14:28:03 [Zakim]
Not knowing who is chairing or who scribed recently, I propose AndyS
14:28:04 [kasei]
... we'll try Zakim.
14:28:29 [AxelPolleres]
Zakim, pick a victim
14:28:29 [Zakim]
Not knowing who is chairing or who scribed recently, I propose bglimm
14:28:39 [AxelPolleres]
Zakim, pick a victim
14:28:39 [Zakim]
Not knowing who is chairing or who scribed recently, I propose AndyS
14:29:07 [AndyS]
Zakim, pick Axel
14:29:07 [Zakim]
I don't understand 'pick Axel', AndyS
14:29:13 [kasei]
(Zakim is being uncooperative.)
14:29:19 [kasei]
AxelPolleres: LeeF, can you review?
14:29:34 [kasei]
LeeF: yes, but don't feel qualified for some of it.
14:29:41 [AxelPolleres]
ACTION: Lee to review entailment
14:29:41 [trackbot]
Created ACTION-317 - Review entailment [on Lee Feigenbaum - due 2010-09-21].
14:29:57 [kasei]
AxelPolleres: HTTP Update
14:30:03 [kasei]
... Chime isn't around, so can't make a decision today.
14:30:07 [kasei]
AxelPolleres: Service Description
14:30:24 [kasei]
... any volunteers?
14:30:24 [AlexPassant]
I volunteer for SD
14:30:36 [AxelPolleres]
ACTION: alex to review SD
14:30:36 [trackbot]
Created ACTION-318 - Review SD [on Alexandre Passant - due 2010-09-21].
14:31:43 [kasei]
AxelPolleres: is it ready for review?
14:32:02 [bglimm]
I can review
14:32:10 [kasei]
kasei: yes, content is all reviewable. open issues for adding cross-links to other documents (e.g. protocol)
14:32:12 [AxelPolleres]
ACTION: birte to review SD
14:32:12 [trackbot]
Created ACTION-319 - Review SD [on Birte Glimm - due 2010-09-21].
14:32:19 [kasei]
AxelPolleres: Alex and Birte will review SD.
14:32:27 [kasei]
AxelPolleres: Protocol document
14:32:33 [kasei]
... still have to figure out the status.
14:32:39 [LeeF]
Uothing new, i think we shouldn't poublish it this time around
14:32:54 [kasei]
... will leave it out for this round.
14:32:58 [AxelPolleres]
protocol to be left out for this round.
14:33:09 [kasei]
AxelPolleres: Test Suite
14:33:27 [kasei]
... question about how we publish it.
14:33:43 [kasei]
... does it make sense to put the test suite in rec-track?
14:33:52 [kasei]
... or sufficient to have it as a note?
14:34:07 [kasei]
... will check our previous discussions.
14:34:19 [kasei]
AndyS: I don't see how we can have feedback on implementations unless test suite is rec-track.
14:35:10 [kasei]
AndyS: is this about the test case document, or the tests themselves?
14:35:20 [kasei]
AxelPolleres: we have to check whether those we've dicussed are marked as approved.
14:35:34 [kasei]
... I would publish the whole document structure, but need a separate overview document.
14:35:41 [kasei]
... only have the readme document right now.
14:35:57 [kasei]
... doesn't make sense to publish this alone. maybe we should hold back.
14:36:14 [kasei]
... on the other hand, we're losing time if we don't do it now.
14:36:32 [kasei]
... I won't be able to work on it in the next 2 weeks.
14:36:44 [kasei]
... I can promise to do it in 3 weeks, then we revisit.
14:37:12 [AxelPolleres]
ACTION: Axel to bring test suite in shape for FPWD within 3 weeks
14:37:12 [trackbot]
Created ACTION-320 - Bring test suite in shape for FPWD within 3 weeks [on Axel Polleres - due 2010-09-21].
14:37:26 [kasei]
AxelPolleres: Overview document
14:37:36 [kasei]
... can probably put it out as FPWD
14:37:42 [kasei]
... any opinions?
14:37:56 [kasei]
link in the agenda doesn't work
14:38:01 [AndyS]
http://www.w3.org/2009/sparql/wiki/Overview-Document
14:38:32 [AxelPolleres]
http://www.w3.org/2009/sparql/wiki/Overview-Document
14:38:48 [kasei]
maybe just for me
14:38:54 [kasei]
q+
14:39:23 [ivan]
ack kasei
14:39:28 [LeeF]
I don't think the overview document is ready to be published.
14:39:53 [kasei]
kasei: more comfortable if FPWD on overview if there was content in the major sections
14:40:04 [kasei]
ivan: not intended for a rec document, right?
14:40:10 [kasei]
... timing is different than for other docs.
14:40:20 [kasei]
... no urgency to publish the overview right now.
14:40:56 [AndyS]
Axel: Overview is not REC track, it's a NOTE
14:41:01 [AxelPolleres]
no urgency for Overview document at the moment, if we publish as note, no hurry
14:41:06 [pgearon_]
pgearon_ has joined #sparql
14:41:29 [kasei]
AxelPolleres: that's it for the agenda. hoping next week we can discuss LET/BIND.
14:41:42 [AxelPolleres]
q?
14:41:43 [kasei]
... any other issues?
14:41:51 [kasei]
AndyS: are we actually having a meeting next week?
14:42:02 [kasei]
AxelPolleres: who is not around next week?
14:42:03 [ivan]
I am at risk
14:42:05 [AxelPolleres]
regrets for next week?
14:42:32 [AndyS]
I am around. Seems to be only me. Decisions, decisions.
14:42:53 [bglimm]
I am
14:43:01 [kasei]
AxelPolleres: hard to have a chair next week. ok to skip next week?
14:43:19 [AxelPolleres]
ivan?, axel, lee, souri
14:43:25 [kasei]
ivan: propose you wait for sandro to come back and ask him if he can chair.
14:43:38 [LeeF]
Steve is still on holiday next week, right?
14:43:43 [LeeF]
could be a very productive meeting :)
14:44:06 [kasei]
AndyS: propose chairs send out email for next week so progress can be made even without a telecon.
14:44:35 [pgearon_]
pgearon_ has left #sparql
14:45:21 [ivan]
zakim, drop me
14:45:21 [Zakim]
Ivan is being disconnected
14:45:22 [Zakim]
-Ivan
14:45:23 [Zakim]
-LeeF
14:45:25 [Zakim]
-??P33
14:45:26 [Zakim]
- +1.603.897.aadd
14:45:27 [AxelPolleres]
adjourned
14:45:27 [Zakim]
-bglimm
14:45:28 [Zakim]
-MattPerry
14:45:28 [kasei]
adjourned
14:45:32 [Zakim]
-OlivierCorby
14:45:38 [Zakim]
-AndyS
14:46:04 [Zakim]
-kasei
14:46:07 [AxelPolleres]
axel: please try to get the promised reivews in in time, possibly earlier, such that we can decide to publish WDs in 2, latest 3 weeks.
14:46:15 [kasei]
link to the minutes publishing stuff?
14:46:28 [AxelPolleres]
rrsagent, make records public
14:46:39 [AxelPolleres]
kasei, will you do the commonscribe thing?
14:46:46 [AxelPolleres]
to publish the minutes?
14:46:51 [kasei]
yes, but need a link to it
14:47:14 [kasei]
AndyS: still around?
14:47:16 [bglimm]
AndyS, are you still there? I meant to ask how you run tests with ARQ and whether I can do that too, just using my modified BGP evaluation. That would spare me the time of writing code for parsing tests and producing the right output format
14:47:26 [AndyS]
kasei, yes
14:47:30 [AxelPolleres]
http://www.w3.org/2010/09/14-sparql-irc
14:47:34 [AxelPolleres]
thanks!
14:47:41 [kasei]
wonder if you'd seen my question from yesterday about type promotion?
14:47:51 [Zakim]
-AxelPolleres
14:47:52 [Zakim]
SW_(SPARQL)10:00AM has ended
14:47:54 [Zakim]
Attendees were AxelPolleres, kasei, +33.4.92.38.aaaa, OlivierCorby, Ivan, AndyS, +1.603.897.aabb, MattPerry, +1.617.245.aacc, +1.603.897.aadd, [IPcaller], LeeF, bglimm
14:48:19 [kasei]
AxelPolleres: where's the commonscribe publishing stuff located?
14:48:52 [AndyS]
bglimm, should be possible to reuse all the test code but IIRC adding in a different BGP engine is not possible externally.
14:49:39 [AndyS]
for modifed codebase, put in your BGP code and run from command line with "qtest manfest.ttl" - there is a helper script qtest
14:50:03 [AndyS]
kasei, what was the question? Slipped my mind or eyesight.
14:50:25 [kasei]
AndyS: right above the defn of Sum in 10.2.2, there's an example about summing 1, 2.0e0, and 3.0. the doc says it should result in 6.0 (decimal), but I expected 6e0 (float).
14:50:31 [bglimm]
Ok, I'll see what I have to do to make it work with my code, thanks
14:50:36 [kasei]
since float can't be 'promoted' to decimal, only to double.
14:50:50 [AndyS]
Looking ....
14:52:39 [AxelPolleres]
http://www.w3.org/2009/CommonScribe/panel/
14:53:23 [AndyS]
Either float or double - can't remember which OTTOMH
14:53:41 [kasei]
but definitely not decimal, right?
14:54:04 [AndyS]
not decimal
14:54:55 [kasei]
ok.
14:55:20 [AndyS]
Seems to be float (http://www.w3.org/TR/xpath20/#promotion)
14:55:27 [kasei]
I suppose for the non-GROUPBY agg tests I added, I could modify them so that the numeric testing happens inside an ASK, just like the GROUP_CONCAT tests...
14:56:41 [AndyS]
Devious - I was going to (re)write result set testing and include value testing so I don't mind either way.
14:57:13 [AndyS]
Guess it's a Q of what's easier for the non-WG impls.
14:57:40 [kasei]
well, for the GROUP BY tests, I think keeping the numeric values in the srx makes sense, otherwise the tests end up having enormous FILTERs.
15:00:13 [AndyS]
bglimm, the test suite executor will execute whatever the rest of the code does (IIRC it has to switch off some ARQ-ism to be strict). Installing a QueryExecutionFactory should just (!) work. The code of course uses Jena to read the manifest so slightly incestuous but it avoids using SPARQL.
15:02:25 [bglimm]
I still get: No such tests jar, and try to figure out what the script actually want, but that's test.sh because I can't find qtest...
15:03:01 [bglimm]
Ah, just found qtest
15:07:29 [AndyS]
Bacjk in a moment IRC client has "lost" the cusor and cursor keys.
15:07:39 [AndyS]
AndyS has joined #sparql
15:08:00 [AndyS]
Better. Can see where I'm typing now.
15:08:43 [AndyS]
bglimm, if you're working from Eclipse, qtest will add on the classes/ directory so you get the development version.
15:09:24 [bglimm]
Yes, I just noticed that. I think, I'll get it to work and if not, I'll get back to you.
15:11:38 [AndyS]
Great - drop me email. Are you using the QueryExecutionFactory?
15:11:43 [bglimm]
Yes
15:12:43 [AndyS]
Great. Should make reading the manifest and executing tests separate.
15:14:55 [bglimm]
Nice, now it runs at least in your ARQ (not my BGP matching), I had it set to Java 1.5, but it requires 1.6 now and didn't compile after I did an SVN update (I had not updated for a long time).
15:15:18 [bglimm]
Tests = 10 : Successes = 10 : Errors = 0 : Failures = 0
15:23:24 [AndyS]
Yea!
16:21:38 [LeeF]
LeeF has joined #sparql
16:57:56 [Zakim]
Zakim has left #sparql
18:45:05 [pgearon_]
pgearon_ has joined #sparql