13:54:24 <RRSAgent> RRSAgent has joined #sparql
13:54:24 <RRSAgent> logging to http://www.w3.org/2011/06/28-sparql-irc
13:54:26 <trackbot> RRSAgent, make logs world
13:54:26 <Zakim> Zakim has joined #sparql
13:54:28 <trackbot> Zakim, this will be 77277
13:54:28 <Zakim> ok, trackbot; I see SW_(SPARQL)10:00AM scheduled to start in 6 minutes
13:54:28 <LeeF> zakim, this will be SPARQL
13:54:29 <trackbot> Meeting: SPARQL Working Group Teleconference
13:54:29 <trackbot> Date: 28 June 2011
13:54:29 <Zakim> ok, LeeF; I see SW_(SPARQL)10:00AM scheduled to start in 6 minutes
13:56:52 <Zakim> SW_(SPARQL)10:00AM has now started
13:56:55 <Zakim> SW_(SPARQL)10:00AM has ended
13:56:56 <Zakim> Attendees were 
13:57:21 <kasei> heh
13:57:48 <SteveH> well, that was a quick call, see you all next week :)
13:58:21 <Zakim> SW_(SPARQL)10:00AM has now started
13:58:30 <Zakim> +kasei
13:59:27 <Zakim> +??P6
13:59:33 <cbuilara> zakim, ??P6 is me
13:59:33 <Zakim> +cbuilara; got it
13:59:39 <Zakim> +caro
13:59:57 <Zakim> +LeeF
14:00:11 <Zakim> + +44.189.583.aaaa
14:00:13 <LeeF> zakim, who's on the phone?
14:00:14 <Zakim> On the phone I see kasei, cbuilara, caro, LeeF, +44.189.583.aaaa
14:00:38 <NickH> Zakim, +44.189.583.aaaa is me
14:00:38 <Zakim> +NickH; got it
14:00:44 <NickH> me!
14:00:48 <Olivier> Olivier is on the phone
14:00:50 <Zakim> +??P14
14:00:56 <SteveH> Zakim, ??P14 is me
14:00:57 <Zakim> +SteveH; got it
14:00:59 <LeeF> zakim, caro is Olivier
14:01:00 <Zakim> +Olivier; got it
14:01:16 <LeeF> Regrets: Axel, Alex, Paul
14:01:50 <LeeF> zakim, who's on the phone?
14:01:51 <Zakim> On the phone I see kasei, cbuilara, Olivier, LeeF, NickH, SteveH
14:02:05 <NickH> sure
14:02:11 <LeeF> scribenick: NickH
14:02:16 <LeeF> Chair: LeeF
14:02:21 <Zakim> +??P21
14:02:30 <AndyS> zakim, ??P21 is me
14:02:30 <Zakim> +AndyS; got it
14:03:27 <LeeF> topic: Admin
14:03:33 <LeeF> PROPOSED: http://www.w3.org/2009/sparql/meeting/2011-06-21
14:04:22 <NickH> LeeF: most of our time last week was spent talking about the RDF-WG decision on the literal datatype
14:04:46 <LeeF> RESOLVED: Accept last week's minutes from http://www.w3.org/2009/sparql/meeting/2011-06-21
14:04:49 <AndyS> Mins Look OK to me
14:05:21 <NickH> LeeF: we have a couple of acknowledgents to comment responses
14:05:52 <NickH> LeeF: did carlo is the comment about a typo
14:05:58 <NickH> carlo: yes
14:06:10 <kasei> still waiting on approval to send out RV-5
14:06:24 <NickH> LeeF: two new comments
14:07:35 <AndyS> IH-2 is minor and will get done sometime.  OWL-Semantics ==> OWL 2 Semantics
14:07:36 <NickH> LeeF: first is comment NL-1
14:07:40 <LeeF> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-dawg-comments/2011Jun/0014.html
14:09:23 <NickH> LeeF: when we were doing the shortcuts for SPARQL Update, you can leave out the template from the CONSTRUCT verb
14:09:48 <NickH> LeeF: and it just copies the template from the WHERE clause
14:10:01 <AndyS> Yes - that's the defn - might (haven't investigated) work as template = all triple patterns mentions for UNION + OPTIONAL 
14:10:05 <NickH> LeeF: concerns about OPTIONAL and UNION being allowed
14:11:00 <AndyS> http://service.demo.lagrummet.se/view/publ/sfs/1991:1469?query
14:11:14 <NickH> AndyS: it would be pretty hairy to support FILTER not bound
14:11:58 <SteveH> I think it's just too hard
14:12:04 <NickH> AndyS: it would have to say something about all the triples that are posively touched
14:12:21 <NickH> LeeF: is there a concept that would be reusable in the current doucment?
14:12:47 <NickH> LeeF: I am inclined to politely decline - out of time and out of scope
14:13:01 <NickH> AndyS: too late to put in new features like this
14:14:04 <NickH> LeeF: I will take ownership of the response
14:15:00 <NickH> LeeF: the other comment was JD-6
14:15:24 <chimezie> chimezie has joined #sparql
14:17:11 <Zakim> +chimezie
14:17:12 <chimezie> chimezie has joined #sparql
14:17:38 <chimezie> hey (sorry I'm late)
14:17:44 <chimezie> Zakim, who is here?
14:17:44 <Zakim> On the phone I see kasei, cbuilara, Olivier, LeeF, NickH, SteveH, AndyS, chimezie
14:17:47 <Zakim> On IRC I see chimezie, Zakim, RRSAgent, cbuilara, Olivier, LeeF, AndyS, SteveH, iv_an_ru_, pgearon, ericP, sandro, trackbot, kasei, NickH, alepas
14:17:48 <NickH> AndyS: if we are now going to allow functions like SUM to return strings, it gets more complex
14:18:04 <AndyS> SUM(my:fixTheData(?x)) where my:fixTheData(?x) gets things into being a number 
14:18:11 <Zakim> -SteveH
14:18:16 <NickH> AndyS: restricting aggregate functions to numbers feels safer
14:18:36 <kasei> q+
14:18:38 <Zakim> +??P14
14:18:42 <SteveH> Zakim, ??P14 is me
14:18:42 <Zakim> +SteveH; got it
14:19:00 <SteveH> q+
14:19:03 <LeeF> ack kasei
14:19:09 <NickH> LeeF: his goal is to let the query engine automatically sort it out, rather than the query writer
14:19:31 <LeeF> ack SteveH
14:19:54 <MattPerry> MattPerry has joined #sparql
14:20:24 <NickH> SteveH: this is a straight forward trade-off between easy of use and safety. When it comes to integers, I would edge on the side of safety. 
14:20:45 <AndyS> q+ to note this does not *require* SUM to be def'ed as +
14:20:58 <Zakim> +MattPerry
14:21:04 <kasei> q+
14:21:31 <LeeF> http://www.w3.org/TR/sparql11-query/#operatorExtensibility
14:22:14 <kasei> q-
14:22:53 <NickH> SteveH: we don't have a paragraph of text that says it is valid to extend aggregate functions
14:23:20 <AndyS> We don't say (and maybe should) that functions (and aggs) can be extended where error -- we did in SPARQL 1.0 (editorial change)
14:23:39 <LeeF> ack AndyS
14:23:39 <Zakim> AndyS, you wanted to note this does not *require* SUM to be def'ed as +
14:24:04 <NickH> AndyS: in Sparql 1.0 we say that you can extend any function in the operator table
14:24:32 <NickH> AndyS: at the moment we don't explictly say that you can extend functions that would other cause an error
14:25:06 <SteveH> +1 to AndyS 
14:25:11 <NickH> AndyS: if we changed SUM() to mean the same thing as +, that would be a big change
14:25:16 <LeeF> q?
14:25:34 <NickH> AndyS: he just has rubbish data that he wants to clean up!
14:26:07 <NickH> SteveH is the owner and has written a draft response
14:26:20 <AndyS> And "1+1"^^xsd:string ?
14:26:29 <NickH> LeeF: any more comments on comments?
14:26:47 <LeeF> topic: Graph terminology telecon
14:26:57 <NickH> LeeF: next topic is joint graph terminology comment from last week
14:27:07 <SteveH> http://www.w3.org/2009/sparql/wiki/CommentResponse:JB-6 <- now with extra para
14:27:46 <NickH> chimezie: G-Snap is roughly an RDF Graph
14:28:00 <NickH> chimezie: G-Box is is RDF Graph Content
14:28:11 <NickH> chimezie: G-Box is an RDG Graph Document
14:28:20 <NickH> chimezie: G-Box is an RDF Graph Document
14:28:52 <NickH> chimezie: we didn't get to the point of actually discussing the text
14:29:17 <NickH> LeeF: there was some some conern about some of the words used 
14:29:22 <NickH> chimezie: there are two concerns
14:29:38 <NickH> chimezie: the notion of an RDF Graph is not formally defined
14:29:56 <NickH> chimezie: they would prefer a different term than RDF Document
14:31:16 <NickH> LeeF: this is pretty easy as far as the SPARQL WG is concerned
14:31:59 <NickH> chimezie: if those actions get to the point where they want to change text in mature documents 
14:32:14 <NickH> LeeF: probably had to play it by ear
14:32:55 <NickH> LeeF: do you think that the actions will result in significant changes to doucment?
14:33:20 <NickH> chimezie: I don't think it will result in a wholesale rewrite
14:33:36 <NickH> AndyS: are there going to be minutes and a summary?
14:33:59 <NickH> LeeF: Richard got hold of IRC logs and is going to create minutes and a summary
14:34:19 <NickH> LeeF: I have a black market copy of the IRC logs, which is available for the right price
14:34:51 <NickH> LeeF: I will send it to the list but Richard will be creating a nicely formatted version
14:35:05 <chimezie> Zakim, mute me
14:35:05 <Zakim> chimezie should now be muted
14:35:07 <LeeF> topic: RDF WG decision on simple literals
14:35:19 <NickH> LeeF: wish sandro was here for the last topic on the agenda
14:36:18 <NickH> LeeF: RDF working group resolves to remove untyped literal without an language tag now gets parsed as literal of type XSD:String
14:36:39 <LeeF> paul's mail: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-dawg/2011AprJun/0399.html
14:36:56 <NickH> LeeF: the options that we have been discussing are
14:37:12 <NickH> LeeF: 1) do nothing
14:38:35 <NickH> LeeF: 3) Wait until the RDF working group has also resolved what should be done about pain literals with language tags
14:39:25 <NickH> 4) come up with a wording that says 'the is what SPARQL 1.1 does today, RDF-WG is working on something and when that is sorted out interpret the SPARQL 1.1 specification differently'
14:39:52 <NickH> LeeF: Is making this changes significant enough to require a second last-call?
14:40:12 <AndyS> LeeF: 2) Incorporate the current RDF WG resolution on simple literals, and nothing else.
14:40:13 <NickH> options 2 and 3 would require a othing else. [1
14:40:37 <SteveH> q+
14:40:38 <NickH> LeeF: unsure if 4 will require a second last-call
14:40:48 <LeeF> ack SteveH
14:41:28 <NickH> SteveH: if we did 1 and added a note saying that the RDF-WG is currently investigating some issues, would it require a second last-call?
14:44:00 <AndyS> INSERT DATA { :x :p "foo" . :x :p "foo"^^xsd:string } --> COUNT  --> changes from 2 to 1
14:45:29 <AndyS> ... which is not an inference effect
14:46:06 <SteveH> SteveH: I feel that the lowest risk way worward is to do 1) but with an informative note saying what we think will happen
14:48:09 <NickH> AndyS: the real problem I see is the miss-alignment between the SPARQL-WG and the RDF-WG
14:48:22 <NickH> AndyS: by the time that they get to rec, it will be rather late
14:48:26 <SteveH> yes, we have to do lang tags as well
14:48:45 <NickH> SPARQL 1.1.1?
14:49:52 <LeeF> zakim, who's on the phone?
14:49:52 <Zakim> On the phone I see kasei, cbuilara, Olivier, LeeF, NickH, AndyS, chimezie (muted), SteveH, MattPerry
14:49:53 <NickH> I think we can't wait
14:50:06 <NickH> but should make a note about it
14:50:20 <LeeF> So, NickH, you're happy with Steve's suggested approach?
14:50:45 <NickH> yes
14:51:32 <LeeF> ACTION: Lee to talk to Sandro and Eric about the informative note approach to aligning SPARQL with the RDF literal changes
14:51:33 <trackbot> Created ACTION-485 - Talk to Sandro and Eric about the informative note approach to aligning SPARQL with the RDF literal changes [on Lee Feigenbaum - due 2011-07-05].
14:53:36 <kasei> service tests 2, 3, and 6 list missing data files in the manifest
14:53:53 <kasei> service tests 4 and 7 are, I believe, wrong.
14:54:42 <LeeF>                qt:data   <data02.ttl> ;
14:54:57 <kasei> I'll send an email with the bigger problems with tests 4 and 7
14:55:34 <AndyS> ericP (tests for federation?)
14:57:12 <NickH> nopem sorry
14:57:18 <NickH> but happy to learn!
14:57:25 <NickH> ok, thanks
14:57:31 <Zakim> -SteveH
14:57:32 <Zakim> -LeeF
14:57:32 <Zakim> -chimezie
14:57:34 <Zakim> -NickH
14:57:35 <Zakim> -AndyS
14:57:37 <Zakim> -cbuilara
14:57:37 <Zakim> -Olivier
14:57:40 <Zakim> -MattPerry
14:57:48 <Zakim> -kasei
14:57:49 <Zakim> SW_(SPARQL)10:00AM has ended
14:57:50 <Zakim> Attendees were kasei, cbuilara, LeeF, NickH, SteveH, Olivier, AndyS, chimezie, MattPerry
14:58:28 <LeeF> SteveH - I'm happy with the JB-6 response
14:58:56 <SteveH> thanks LeeF 
14:59:10 <LeeF> NickH, there are some instructions on how to use CommonScribe (the tool we use to generate the minutes) here: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-wg/2011May/0298.html
14:59:16 <LeeF> why don't you give it a shot and let me know if you have any issues?
14:59:24 <NickH> LeeF: sure
15:01:18 <NickH> how magical!
15:05:37 <NickH> Done: http://www.w3.org/2009/sparql/meeting/2011-06-28
15:24:36 <LeeF> awesome, thanks, NickH!
15:55:44 <SteveH> AndyS, the text I added to JB-6 was: "We will add some text to the document making it clear that any function/operator which returns a type error may be extended by implementations, this has become less clear since the 1.0 version." — does that seem OK?
16:52:00 <Zakim> Zakim has left #sparql
17:29:16 <AndyS> sure - there are all sorts of traps in extending SUM and I don't see a necessary reason why it has to be done that way so (LC!) [I think casting is what is really needed]
19:03:39 <AndyS> AndyS has joined #sparql
20:46:13 <SteveH> SteveH has joined #sparql
20:46:25 <SteveH_> SteveH_ has joined #sparql