IRC log of sparql on 2011-03-15

Timestamps are in UTC.

13:56:14 [RRSAgent]
RRSAgent has joined #sparql
13:56:14 [RRSAgent]
logging to
13:56:16 [trackbot]
RRSAgent, make logs world
13:56:16 [Zakim]
Zakim has joined #sparql
13:56:17 [AndyS]
LeeF, you could review all but sec 18 and factor in comments by Birte and Matt. Majority are sec 18 comments - we can process those first then you review.
13:56:18 [trackbot]
Zakim, this will be 77277
13:56:18 [Zakim]
ok, trackbot; I see SW_(SPARQL)10:00AM scheduled to start in 4 minutes
13:56:19 [trackbot]
Meeting: SPARQL Working Group Teleconference
13:56:19 [trackbot]
Date: 15 March 2011
13:56:26 [LeeF]
zakim, this will be SPARQL
13:56:26 [Zakim]
ok, LeeF; I see SW_(SPARQL)10:00AM scheduled to start in 4 minutes
13:56:30 [LeeF]
AndyS, thanks
13:56:34 [LeeF]
Chair: LeeF
13:56:36 [LeeF]
Scribe: Any
13:56:39 [LeeF]
Scribenick: AndyS
13:56:46 [LeeF]
13:56:57 [Zakim]
SW_(SPARQL)10:00AM has now started
13:57:03 [LeeF]
Regrets: Axel, Alex, Chime, Paul
13:57:04 [Zakim]
13:57:12 [SteveH]
Zakim, ??P14 is me
13:57:12 [Zakim]
+SteveH; got it
13:57:20 [Zakim]
13:57:33 [Zakim]
13:57:39 [cbuilara]
zakim, IPcaller is me
13:57:39 [Zakim]
+cbuilara; got it
13:58:05 [Zakim]
13:58:26 [AndyS]
zakim, ??P18 is me
13:58:26 [Zakim]
+AndyS; got it
13:59:21 [Zakim]
13:59:41 [LeeF]
zakim, Lee_Feigenbaum is me
13:59:41 [Zakim]
+LeeF; got it
13:59:56 [MattPerry]
MattPerry has joined #sparql
14:00:09 [LeeF]
zakim, who's on the phone?
14:00:09 [Zakim]
On the phone I see SteveH, kasei, cbuilara, AndyS, LeeF
14:00:18 [Zakim]
14:00:29 [bglimm]
Zakim, +??P22 is me
14:00:29 [Zakim]
sorry, bglimm, I do not recognize a party named '+??P22'
14:00:39 [bglimm]
Zakim, ??P22 i sme
14:00:39 [Zakim]
I don't understand '??P22 i sme', bglimm
14:00:49 [bglimm]
member:Zakim, ??P22 is me
14:00:59 [AndyS]
Topic: Admin
14:00:59 [Zakim]
+ +1.603.897.aaaa
14:01:01 [LeeF]
zakim, ??P22 is bglimm
14:01:03 [Zakim]
+bglimm; got it
14:01:12 [MattPerry]
zakim, aaaa is me
14:01:12 [Zakim]
+MattPerry; got it
14:01:47 [LeeF]
14:01:52 [LeeF]
topic: admin
14:01:55 [AndyS]
Regrets: pgearon, AlexPassant, AxelPollares
14:01:59 [LeeF]
PROPOSED: Approve minutes at
14:02:11 [bglimm]
Zakim, mute me
14:02:11 [Zakim]
bglimm should now be muted
14:02:26 [AndyS]
14:02:36 [LeeF]
RESOLVED: Approve minutes at
14:02:53 [AndyS]
LeeF: No new comments to assign
14:03:06 [LeeF]
Next regular meeting: 2011-03-22 @ 14:00 UK / 10:00 EST (scribe: Lee F) NOTE DIFFERENT TIME FOR NON-US LOCATIONS
14:03:07 [AndyS]
... Axel will do a round up next week.
14:03:26 [AndyS]
scribe next time: LeeF
14:03:38 [LeeF]
steveh at risk
14:03:48 [LeeF]
topic: to last call
14:04:14 [AndyS]
Query reviews from Birte and Matt
14:04:29 [AndyS]
... in email
14:04:37 [bglimm]
14:04:40 [bglimm]
I did it
14:04:58 [AndyS]
14:05:06 [AndyS]
14:05:28 [LeeF]
close ACTION-391
14:05:29 [trackbot]
ACTION-391 Review Query, particularly Section 18 closed
14:05:35 [AndyS]
just waiting for LeeF now :-)
14:05:50 [AndyS]
... and Axel. Spot the connection.
14:06:34 [bglimm]
Zakim, unmute me
14:06:34 [Zakim]
bglimm should no longer be muted
14:06:46 [AndyS]
AndyS update reviews and
14:08:09 [LeeF]
bglimm: 2 significant issues - no connection between EXISTS/NOT EXISTS and algebra & property paths break entailment extension mechanism
14:08:17 [LeeF]
AndyS: re first, that's an omission
14:10:08 [AndyS]
... entailment doc was going to discuss entailment+prop paths -- still some discussion about what's in query doc.
14:10:31 [AndyS]
Kendal : his org is not able to review the entailment doc.
14:10:45 [AndyS]
LeeF: One view from Oracle (link?)
14:10:52 [bglimm]
I can ask Bijan, but I asked in our group here and no volunteers :-(
14:11:18 [AndyS]
... will ask semweb coord group - maybe someone from OWL2.
14:11:47 [bglimm]
I can also ask Ian whether he can think of somebody
14:12:01 [AndyS]
... do want 2 (+) reviews before LC
14:12:06 [MattPerry]
Oracle entailment review from Zhe Whu (
14:12:11 [LeeF]
ACTION: Lee to ask for pre-last call reviews of entailment doc from SWCG and OWL WG
14:12:12 [trackbot]
Created ACTION-411 - Ask for pre-last call reviews of entailment doc from SWCG and OWL WG [on Lee Feigenbaum - due 2011-03-22].
14:12:44 [OlivierCorby]
OlivierCorby has joined #sparql
14:12:55 [AndyS]
Topic: Actions
14:13:02 [AndyS]
None to close
14:13:06 [LeeF]
topic: Dataset protocol & service description
14:14:06 [Zakim]
+ +
14:14:08 [AndyS]
Little email discussion after last telecon
14:14:20 [OlivierCorby]
zakim, aabb is me
14:14:20 [Zakim]
+OlivierCorby; got it
14:14:32 [LeeF]
PROPOSED: The SPARQL 1.1 Service Description describes endpoints that implement the SPARQL 1.1 Protocol; it does not describe URIs that respond to the SPARQL 1.1 RDF Dataset HTTP Protocol.
14:14:32 [Zakim]
14:14:36 [sandro]
(sorry I'm late)
14:14:39 [AndyS]
... proposal is therefore the minimal case that service description covers protocol, not HTTP dataset protocol
14:15:07 [AndyS]
... anyone have concerns about this approach?
14:15:11 [LeeF]
14:15:19 [kasei]
14:15:20 [Zakim]
14:15:38 [LeeF]
RESOLVED: The SPARQL 1.1 Service Description describes endpoints that implement the SPARQL 1.1 Protocol; it does not describe URIs that respond to the SPARQL 1.1 RDF Dataset HTTP Protocol.
14:15:54 [Zakim]
14:16:02 [bglimm]
Zakim, ??P11 is me
14:16:02 [Zakim]
+bglimm; got it
14:16:04 [AndyS]
LeeF: Overview doc needs to point this out.
14:16:25 [AndyS]
Kasei: SD doc does not mention dataset protocol.
14:17:06 [AndyS]
LeeF: make clear statement about what is described and leave to overview doc.
14:17:25 [LeeF]
ACTION: Lee to make sure overview document is clear about (non-)relationship between service description and rdf dataset http protocol
14:17:25 [trackbot]
Created ACTION-412 - Make sure overview document is clear about (non-)relationship between service description and rdf dataset http protocol [on Lee Feigenbaum - due 2011-03-22].
14:18:29 [AndyS]
Topic: relationship bewteen URI of a graph store at which they can issue dataset protocol requests?
14:19:04 [AndyS]
LeeF: a bit unclear currently : not an issue in SPARQL 1.0 in practice,
14:19:20 [bglimm]
Zakim, mute me
14:19:20 [Zakim]
bglimm should now be muted
14:20:09 [AndyS]
SteveH: /sparql/dataset and /data/dataset
14:21:04 [AndyS]
AndyS: Fuseki uses /dataset/sparql, /dataset/update and /dataset/data (and /dataset)
14:22:37 [AndyS]
LeeF: SD assumes you have a URI to GET to start process
14:23:56 [AndyS]
LeeF: Leave as is for now there being no proposals
14:24:00 [LeeF]
14:24:09 [AndyS]
Topic: More operations besides POSTing to a Graph Store
14:24:22 [LeeF]
14:24:23 [LeeF]
However my comment relates to management of Datasets, not graphs. I
14:24:23 [LeeF]
think it would be useful to be able to:
14:24:23 [LeeF]
* Add/Remove Datasets
14:24:23 [LeeF]
* Add/Remove Graphs from Datasets
14:24:23 [LeeF]
The specification already discusses the addition and removal of Graphs.
14:24:25 [LeeF]
14:25:26 [AndyS]
q+ to ask why point 2 isn't always covered
14:25:29 [kasei]
I don't understand what the first one means. How would you then use a new dataset if it's not a 'default' dataset?
14:26:03 [kasei]
q+ to clarify datasets vs. SD
14:26:06 [AndyS]
LeeF: We do not provide a lifecycle for datasets
14:26:09 [LeeF]
ack AndyS
14:26:09 [Zakim]
AndyS, you wanted to ask why point 2 isn't always covered
14:27:02 [AndyS]
Leigh may have a model of a set of graphs that can be assembled in datasets
14:27:23 [LeeF]
ack kasei
14:27:23 [Zakim]
kasei, you wanted to clarify datasets vs. SD
14:27:54 [AndyS]
Who's handling the comment?
14:29:20 [AndyS]
Thread for LD-3
14:30:52 [AndyS]
leeF: advice to Chime that the request isn't clear
14:31:08 [Zakim]
14:31:19 [LeeF]
AndyS: work in RDF WG on quads may enable Leigh's request in the future
14:31:21 [AndyS]
AndyS: Some work in RDF-WG may impact this.
14:31:38 [Zakim]
14:31:39 [AndyS]
LeeF: will follow up with Chime.
14:31:46 [bglimm]
Zakim, ??P5 is me
14:31:46 [Zakim]
+bglimm; got it
14:32:00 [AndyS]
Topic: D-entailment canonicalization issue
14:32:41 [AndyS]
Birte: problem is that there are multiple lexical forms for the same value.
14:33:10 [AndyS]
... no specification as to whether canonicalization should be done.
14:33:36 [AndyS]
... if no canonicalization done, may get multiple answers for same value.
14:34:05 [AndyS]
... and also issue as to which datatypes are supported.
14:34:26 [AndyS]
LeeF: What is state of the art?
14:34:30 [SteveH]
14:35:07 [AndyS]
Birte: XSD numerical datatypes common
14:36:11 [LeeF]
AndyS: what about overlapping value spaces of decimal and double?
14:36:21 [LeeF]
bglimm: XSD says that the value spaces are disjoint
14:36:44 [AndyS]
LeeF: What are the options?
14:37:00 [LeeF]
14:37:40 [LeeF]
bglimm: 1) remove D-entailment 2) require canonicalization and identify a set of datatypes
14:37:44 [AndyS]
Birte: (1) remove d-entailment (2) require canonicalization + some datatypes (3) no changes to doc
14:37:45 [LeeF]
AndyS: a fixed set of datatypes?
14:37:49 [LeeF]
bglimm: no could be extended
14:39:16 [MattPerry]
I would vote for option 2
14:40:55 [MattPerry]
Oracle does it for most xsd types
14:41:23 [MattPerry]
numeric, date, boolean, string
14:42:23 [bglimm]
OWL 2 doesn't support xsd:date, just xsd:dateTime & xsd:dateTimeStamp
14:42:54 [AndyS]
What's dateTimeStamp?
14:43:20 [AndyS]
Canoicalization is done by a few systems - they do not claim D-ent
14:43:22 [bglimm]
I would have to look it up
14:43:53 [MattPerry]
Same at Oracle, we don't say anything about D-entailment
14:44:16 [MattPerry]
just canonicalization
14:44:18 [AndyS]
AndyS: e.g. <s> <p> 1 . <s> <p> 01 .
14:44:56 [AndyS]
Birte: one triple counts for query answers
14:45:27 [bglimm]
D-Entailment includes also RDFS Entailment
14:45:55 [AndyS]
LeeF; D-ent only of interest to systems that do not canonicalize.
14:46:04 [AndyS]
.. any such systems?
14:46:38 [AndyS]
... now understand better. Take one week to survey and if too few, remove section.
14:46:45 [MattPerry]
That's fine
14:46:50 [Zakim]
14:47:06 [AndyS]
AndyS: Acceptable.
14:47:18 [Zakim]
14:47:22 [AndyS]
LeeF: any other business?
14:47:26 [bglimm]
Zakim, ??P1 is me
14:47:26 [Zakim]
+bglimm; got it
14:47:41 [AndyS]
AndyS: tests?
14:48:12 [AndyS]
LeeF: some pending - maybe a "tests telecon" - some open actions on checking and extending tests.
14:49:01 [AndyS]
LeeF: Repeat for encouragement - checking does not take too long.
14:50:30 [AndyS]
LeeF: Semtech June seems a bit late for a F2F
14:50:56 [AndyS]
... could get together for impl report etc as we might be in CR
14:51:17 [MattPerry]
14:51:18 [AndyS]
14:51:18 [Zakim]
14:51:19 [Zakim]
14:51:20 [Zakim]
14:51:22 [Zakim]
14:51:24 [Zakim]
14:51:24 [Zakim]
14:51:45 [Zakim]
14:52:22 [Zakim]
14:55:42 [AndyS]
rrsagent, please make logs public
15:03:41 [SteveH]
SteveH has joined #sparql
15:35:00 [Zakim]
disconnecting the lone participant, SteveH, in SW_(SPARQL)10:00AM
15:35:04 [Zakim]
SW_(SPARQL)10:00AM has ended
15:35:06 [Zakim]
Attendees were SteveH, kasei, cbuilara, AndyS, LeeF, +1.603.897.aaaa, bglimm, MattPerry, +, OlivierCorby, Sandro
15:35:31 [AndyS]
zakim, that will be all thank you
15:35:31 [Zakim]
I don't understand 'that will be all thank you', AndyS
15:35:39 [AndyS]
zakim, please leave
15:35:39 [Zakim]
Zakim has left #sparql
17:15:56 [SteveH_]
SteveH_ has joined #sparql
17:31:24 [LeeF]
kasei, i'm (gasp) starting to look at the protocol document... are you around if I have some questions?
17:31:45 [kasei]
yeah, mostly
17:31:57 [kasei]
I'll try to keep one eye on irc
17:36:54 [LeeF]
kasei, thanks. first question -- terminology - is "HTTP operation" accepted terminology for the combination of an HTTP request and response? and is the proper term for the arguments to the operation "parameters" (as in "query string parameters")?
17:37:36 [kasei]
i don't know -- I think that's terminology I left in from the previous version.
17:37:48 [LeeF]
ah ok. WSDL definitely talks about operations
17:37:49 [kasei]
I *believe* that parameters is correct, though.
17:38:06 [LeeF]
i'd kind of like to either define it ourselves or move away from it and prefer requests
17:39:07 [LeeF]
there must be a standard term for an HTTP request+response though
17:39:39 [LeeF]
eh, i'll use operation and just define what we mean
17:40:57 [LeeF]
kasei, do you have a strong preference for "SPARQL Protocol" vs. "The SPARQL Protocol" ?
17:41:04 [kasei]
17:41:43 [LeeF]
ok, i strongly prefer "The" :)
18:02:35 [SteveH]
SteveH has joined #sparql