IRC log of sparql on 2010-09-28

Timestamps are in UTC.

13:58:55 [RRSAgent]
RRSAgent has joined #sparql
13:58:55 [RRSAgent]
logging to http://www.w3.org/2010/09/28-sparql-irc
13:58:57 [trackbot]
RRSAgent, make logs world
13:58:57 [Zakim]
Zakim has joined #sparql
13:58:59 [trackbot]
Zakim, this will be 77277
13:58:59 [Zakim]
ok, trackbot; I see SW_(SPARQL)10:00AM scheduled to start in 2 minutes
13:59:00 [LeeF]
zakim, this will be SPARQL
13:59:00 [trackbot]
Meeting: SPARQL Working Group Teleconference
13:59:01 [trackbot]
Date: 28 September 2010
13:59:02 [Zakim]
ok, LeeF, I see SW_(SPARQL)10:00AM already started
13:59:07 [Zakim]
+MattPerry
13:59:40 [Zakim]
+LeeF
13:59:40 [Zakim]
+ +1.310.729.aaaa
13:59:40 [bglimm]
All circuits are busy now for me too :-(
13:59:49 [SteveH_]
yup :(
13:59:53 [kasei]
Zakim, aaaa is me
13:59:53 [Zakim]
+kasei; got it
14:00:16 [LeeF]
I haven't seen any W3C notices, which doesn't really mean much.
14:00:26 [Zakim]
+pgearon
14:00:34 [Zakim]
+??P26
14:00:35 [LeeF]
Regrets: Axel, Chime, Alex
14:00:41 [AndyS]
zakim, ??P26 is me
14:00:41 [Zakim]
+AndyS; got it
14:01:03 [Zakim]
+Sandro
14:01:13 [LeeF]
Scribenick: MattPerry
14:01:21 [Zakim]
+[IPcaller]
14:01:28 [SteveH_]
Zakim, [IPcaller] is me
14:01:28 [Zakim]
+SteveH_; got it
14:01:30 [Zakim]
+bglimm
14:01:38 [Souri]
Souri has joined #sparql
14:01:45 [bglimm]
Zakim, mute me
14:01:53 [Zakim]
bglimm should now be muted
14:01:56 [Zakim]
+??P30
14:02:18 [Zakim]
+Souri
14:02:33 [NickH]
Zakim, ??P30 is me
14:02:33 [Zakim]
+NickH; got it
14:04:05 [Zakim]
+Garlik
14:04:10 [Zakim]
-SteveH_
14:04:14 [MattPerry]
LeeF: want to go through documents to see status for next round of publication
14:04:18 [SteveH]
Zakim, Garlik is temporarily me
14:04:18 [Zakim]
+SteveH; got it
14:04:29 [OlivierCorby]
Not able to join by tel, system refuses ...
14:04:46 [MattPerry]
LeeF: not in a position to go over Let/Bind this week but maybe next week
14:04:47 [LeeF]
Agenda: http://www.w3.org/2009/sparql/wiki/Agenda-2010-09-28
14:04:55 [LeeF]
PROPOSED: Approve minutes at http://www.w3.org/2009/sparql/meeting/2010-09-14
14:05:12 [Zakim]
+OlivierCorby
14:05:19 [OlivierCorby]
Hi
14:05:37 [LeeF]
RESOLVED: Approve minutes at http://www.w3.org/2009/sparql/meeting/2010-09-14
14:05:57 [MattPerry]
topic: query document reviews
14:06:37 [MattPerry]
LeeF: issues: BINDING keyword and isNumeric function and errors in aggregates
14:06:48 [LeeF]
subtopic: semantics of BINDINGS
14:06:58 [LeeF]
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-dawg/2010JulSep/0370.html
14:07:35 [LeeF]
"""
14:07:36 [LeeF]
for each row:
14:07:36 [LeeF]
substitute all occurrences of named variables in the query
14:07:36 [LeeF]
execute modified query
14:07:37 [LeeF]
"""
14:08:42 [LeeF]
"""
14:08:43 [LeeF]
SELECT *
14:08:43 [LeeF]
{ ?s ?p ?o . FILTER ( ?o < ?v ) }
14:08:43 [LeeF]
BINDINGS ?v { (1) (2) }
14:08:44 [LeeF]
"""
14:09:26 [LeeF]
this bindings list has two rows, each with one value
14:09:29 [MattPerry]
AndyS: for each binding set, substitute into query and then execute query
14:10:09 [MattPerry]
AndyS: in federated doc, turn binding into table and then join with query
14:10:33 [SteveH]
q+
14:10:36 [kasei]
is this a better example for this discussion (whether the results have any variables bound)?: select * where {} bindings ?s { (1) (2) }
14:10:47 [LeeF]
ack SteveH
14:11:18 [MattPerry]
SteveH: our implementation works more like the join description
14:12:09 [LeeF]
Not so sure if that's a good example, Greg - wouldn't that turn the same way either way?
14:12:13 [MattPerry]
SteveH: for Greg's example we would get ?s bound to 1 and 2
14:12:23 [AndyS]
kasei, independent design point - can make ?v visible of * or not for either design
14:13:01 [OlivierCorby]
What about variables in minus ?
14:13:30 [kasei]
I share SteveH's concern about optimization.
14:13:56 [ericP]
ericP has joined #sparql
14:14:31 [ericP]
Zakim, please dial ericP-office
14:14:31 [Zakim]
ok, ericP; the call is being made
14:14:32 [Zakim]
+EricP
14:15:06 [MattPerry]
AndyS: this definition is an improvement in federated query
14:15:09 [OlivierCorby]
q+
14:15:21 [LeeF]
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-dawg/2010JulSep/0370.html
14:16:44 [LeeF]
ack OlivierCorby
14:16:52 [MattPerry]
LeeF: issue is that some variables, e.g. those in filter, can't get their values from a join
14:17:31 [AndyS]
q+
14:17:35 [MattPerry]
OliverCorby: what about MINUS, can it be a substitution?
14:17:40 [LeeF]
ack AndyS
14:17:45 [ericP]
q+
14:17:57 [MattPerry]
AndyS: I would think that substitution would work for MINUS
14:18:12 [SteveH]
I don't like the approach of conflating parameterised queries and pre-binding, they're different
14:18:27 [LeeF]
ack ericP
14:19:19 [MattPerry]
ericP: biggest issue is the FILTER issue
14:21:17 [SteveH]
q+ to ask why bindings goes at the "end"
14:21:57 [MattPerry]
... I would go with the same semantics we used with OPTIONAL, the FILTER works on the previous set of variables
14:22:07 [LeeF]
ack SteveH
14:22:07 [Zakim]
SteveH, you wanted to ask why bindings goes at the "end"
14:23:23 [AndyS]
q+
14:23:28 [MattPerry]
ericP: BINDINGS go at the end because you may want to stream the result, and this is only possible if the query is done before you get the bindings
14:24:52 [LeeF]
ack AndyS
14:25:35 [MattPerry]
AndyS: if you see the query first, you can do a "prepare" on the query
14:26:41 [MattPerry]
ericP: optional has a left pattern, right pattern and filter ... the filter works on the left and right pattern
14:27:03 [kasei]
I don't think people would ever figure that out.
14:27:05 [MattPerry]
... filters now have a left and right where right comes from the BINDINGS
14:28:29 [MattPerry]
ericP: I think that if people are given a mandate for substitution, they will still figure out a way to do it with joins but this may be difficult for people
14:28:44 [SteveH]
+1 to ericP
14:29:22 [MattPerry]
AndyS: substitution is not a new operation in the algebra, but a new join is a new operation
14:29:31 [SteveH]
that's the problem
14:30:09 [MattPerry]
SteveH: the problem is implementing a substitution operation
14:31:18 [MattPerry]
AndyS: I think the FILTER case is the important one
14:31:45 [MattPerry]
LeeF: is the working group motivated to make the FILTER case work
14:31:48 [AndyS]
q+
14:32:27 [kasei]
q+
14:32:29 [LeeF]
ack AndyS
14:32:30 [ericP]
i'm happy to leave it out for now
14:32:35 [ericP]
but i'm not the alpha team contact
14:33:10 [MattPerry]
SteveH: BINDINGS keyword does not imply substitution to me
14:33:15 [LeeF]
ack, kasei
14:33:31 [LeeF]
ack kasei
14:34:11 [MattPerry]
kasei: I agree with SteveH on most of the issues ... BINDINGS imply a join to me
14:34:50 [SteveH]
well put kasei
14:34:57 [MattPerry]
... BINDINGS should give same execution but just a subset of the results ... substitution could give different results
14:35:06 [pgearon]
+1 to kasei's POV
14:36:11 [LeeF]
straw poll: should the values in rows in the BINDINGS clause be available within FILTERs etc. within the query a la AndyS's proposal?
14:36:35 [SteveH]
that statement is not correct
14:37:34 [MattPerry]
SteveH: this is about what happens when you have a variable in Filter but not in the graph pattern
14:38:05 [LeeF]
straw poll: should the BINDINGS clause have Join or Substitution semantics?
14:38:21 [kasei]
Join
14:38:23 [SteveH]
Join
14:38:28 [pgearon]
join
14:38:28 [ericP]
join
14:38:29 [NickH]
Join
14:38:31 [MattPerry]
join
14:38:40 [bglimm]
0 (not enough understanding of the issues)
14:38:46 [Souri]
+1 to Andy's substitution proposal (if I understand it correctly, substitution of the values from each binding row and then querying would return some results)
14:38:47 [OlivierCorby]
0 too
14:39:08 [LeeF]
0
14:39:12 [ericP]
7
14:39:13 [AndyS]
filter visibility
14:39:14 [sandro]
0
14:40:00 [SteveH]
q+ to ask about templating
14:40:07 [LeeF]
ack SteveH
14:40:07 [Zakim]
SteveH, you wanted to ask about templating
14:40:27 [LeeF]
The group has general consensus to keep the semantics of BINDINGS as is for now.
14:40:27 [MattPerry]
SteveH: is templating on our to-do list?
14:40:45 [MattPerry]
LeeF: templating missed the cut for 1.1
14:41:11 [MattPerry]
subtopic: isNumeric
14:41:16 [LeeF]
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-dawg/2010JulSep/0410.html
14:41:17 [SteveH]
+1 to isNumeric()
14:42:13 [LeeF]
SUM(?x)
14:42:13 [MattPerry]
SteveH: isNumeric is very useful for numeric operations due to the weak typing
14:42:47 [MattPerry]
SteveH: right now, we go to xpath numeric-add operation
14:43:02 [LeeF]
SUM(IF(isNumeric(?x), ?x, 0))
14:43:02 [MattPerry]
... a date, for example, will give a type error
14:43:18 [AndyS]
sum("a") is legal :-)
14:43:28 [SteveH]
AndyS, yeah, semi-deliberate :)
14:43:31 [LeeF]
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-dawg/2010JulSep/0460.html
14:44:14 [LeeF]
PROPOSED: Include an isNumeric function in SPARQL 1.1
14:44:27 [AndyS]
seconded
14:44:45 [LeeF]
RESOLVED: Include an isNumeric function in SPARQL 1.1
14:45:13 [AndyS]
SteveH, I implemented the more obvious way
14:45:29 [SteveH]
AndyS, which is that? :)
14:45:31 [MattPerry]
topic: go through document reviews
14:45:40 [AndyS]
sum("a") -> error
14:45:48 [MattPerry]
subtopic: query
14:45:54 [SteveH]
ah, right, that's what I'm going to write in when I have time
14:46:06 [AndyS]
like sum("a"+0) or sum("a", 0) -> error
14:46:12 [SteveH]
right
14:46:20 [ericP]
q+ to ask if federation is rolled in
14:46:48 [LeeF]
ack, ericP
14:46:51 [LeeF]
ack ericP
14:46:51 [Zakim]
ericP, you wanted to ask if federation is rolled in
14:47:13 [MattPerry]
ericP: who is editor of federation?
14:48:45 [MattPerry]
ericP: I can take a look at the comments for federation
14:49:21 [MattPerry]
I fine with it
14:49:24 [kasei]
me too
14:49:28 [MattPerry]
s/I/I'm
14:49:33 [SteveH]
actually, I'd like to make a couple of edits, based on reviews
14:49:38 [SteveH]
if that wont gum up the process
14:49:41 [SteveH]
otherwise its fine
14:50:45 [MattPerry]
SteveH: some non-algebraic changes I would like to make
14:51:23 [MattPerry]
LeeF: should be fine if you do it by Friday
14:51:47 [LeeF]
PROPOSED: Publish http://www.w3.org/2009/sparql/docs/query-1.1/rq25.xml + Steve's wording changes in response to Greg's comments as Working Draft
14:52:37 [LeeF]
PROPOSED: Publish http://www.w3.org/2009/sparql/docs/query-1.1/rq25.xml + editorial changes in response to Greg's comments as Working Draft
14:52:45 [AndyS]
0.5
14:52:50 [SteveH]
1
14:53:43 [MattPerry]
AndyS: would like to process all the comments first
14:54:30 [SteveH]
I'm also not swapped in on that
14:54:32 [LeeF]
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-dawg/2010JulSep/0454.html
14:55:12 [MattPerry]
LeeF: lets hold off on publishing for now and try to go through all docs next week
14:55:44 [AndyS]
q+ to ask about isNumeric (get in if possible?)
14:56:18 [SteveH]
and fix sum("a") on same basis
14:56:18 [LeeF]
ack AndyS
14:56:18 [Zakim]
AndyS, you wanted to ask about isNumeric (get in if possible?)
14:56:20 [MattPerry]
AndyS: I can try to put in isNumeric
14:57:14 [bglimm]
Zakim, unmute me
14:57:14 [Zakim]
bglimm should no longer be muted
14:57:48 [MattPerry]
kasei: will summarize what changes went into service description
14:58:08 [MattPerry]
bglimm: service description is ready from my point of view
14:58:20 [MattPerry]
... entailment is awaiting LeeF's review
14:58:45 [MattPerry]
OliverCorby: entilment is ok with me
14:58:54 [MattPerry]
s/entilment/entailment
14:59:02 [SteveH]
bye all
14:59:03 [MattPerry]
bye
14:59:06 [Zakim]
-LeeF
14:59:08 [Zakim]
-pgearon
14:59:08 [NickH]
bye!
14:59:10 [Zakim]
-SteveH
14:59:11 [LeeF]
Matt, thanks very much for scribingg
14:59:12 [Zakim]
-Sandro
14:59:14 [Zakim]
-bglimm
14:59:16 [Zakim]
-kasei
14:59:18 [Zakim]
-MattPerry
14:59:20 [Zakim]
-EricP
14:59:22 [Zakim]
-NickH
14:59:24 [Zakim]
-Souri
14:59:30 [Zakim]
-OlivierCorby
14:59:32 [Zakim]
-AndyS
14:59:36 [Zakim]
SW_(SPARQL)10:00AM has ended
14:59:38 [Zakim]
Attendees were MattPerry, LeeF, +1.310.729.aaaa, kasei, pgearon, AndyS, Sandro, SteveH_, bglimm, Souri, NickH, SteveH, OlivierCorby, EricP
15:03:19 [OlivierCorby]
OlivierCorby has left #sparql
17:05:23 [Zakim]
Zakim has left #sparql
17:33:19 [AndyS]
Defining what it means to be numeric. Reusing some of ericP's fine words.
17:51:34 [AndyS]
isNumeric added to rq25. Note: the lexical form of the term must be valid ("1220"^^xsd:byte is not) to make it consistent with numeric operations. And RDF-MT.
19:34:05 [AndyS]
AndyS has joined #sparql
20:00:19 [SteveH]
SteveH has joined #sparql
21:43:53 [LeeF]
LeeF has joined #sparql
22:00:36 [karl]
karl has joined #sparql