IRC log of sparql on 2011-08-09

Timestamps are in UTC.

13:55:34 [RRSAgent]
RRSAgent has joined #sparql
13:55:34 [RRSAgent]
logging to http://www.w3.org/2011/08/09-sparql-irc
13:55:36 [trackbot]
RRSAgent, make logs world
13:55:36 [Zakim]
Zakim has joined #sparql
13:55:38 [trackbot]
Zakim, this will be 77277
13:55:38 [Zakim]
ok, trackbot; I see SW_(SPARQL)10:00AM scheduled to start in 5 minutes
13:55:39 [trackbot]
Meeting: SPARQL Working Group Teleconference
13:55:39 [trackbot]
Date: 09 August 2011
13:55:39 [LeeF]
zakim, this will be SPARQL
13:55:39 [Zakim]
ok, LeeF; I see SW_(SPARQL)10:00AM scheduled to start in 5 minutes
13:55:41 [LeeF]
Chair: LeeF
13:55:44 [LeeF]
Scribe: bglimm
13:55:47 [LeeF]
Scribenick: bglimm
13:56:32 [LeeF]
Agenda: http://www.w3.org/2009/sparql/wiki/Agenda-2011-08-09
13:56:37 [LeeF]
LeeF has changed the topic to: Agenda: http://www.w3.org/2009/sparql/wiki/Agenda-2011-08-09 (LeeF)
13:56:44 [SteveH]
SteveH has joined #sparql
13:57:07 [Zakim]
SW_(SPARQL)10:00AM has now started
13:57:15 [Zakim]
+??P2
13:57:21 [bglimm]
Zakim, ??P2 is me
13:57:21 [Zakim]
+bglimm; got it
13:57:34 [AndyS]
AndyS has joined #sparql
13:57:47 [Zakim]
+??P3
13:57:54 [AndyS]
zakim, ??P3 i sme
13:57:54 [Zakim]
I don't understand '??P3 i sme', AndyS
13:57:58 [Zakim]
+ +1.617.553.aaaa
13:58:00 [AndyS]
zakim, ??P3 is me
13:58:00 [Zakim]
+AndyS; got it
13:58:04 [LeeF]
zakim, aaaa is me
13:58:05 [Zakim]
+LeeF; got it
13:58:18 [MattPerry]
MattPerry has joined #sparql
13:58:21 [AndyS]
Hi there
13:58:25 [AndyS]
A lot of echo
13:58:26 [Zakim]
+??P4
13:58:31 [SteveH]
Zakim, ??P4 is me
13:58:31 [Zakim]
+SteveH; got it
13:58:33 [bglimm]
Zakim, mute me
13:58:33 [Zakim]
bglimm should now be muted
13:58:38 [bglimm]
better?
13:59:20 [Zakim]
+kasei
13:59:24 [kasei]
success!
13:59:51 [cbuilara]
cbuilara has joined #sparql
14:00:06 [Zakim]
+??P12
14:00:12 [cbuilara]
zakim, ??P12 is me
14:00:12 [Zakim]
+cbuilara; got it
14:00:29 [Zakim]
+ +1.603.897.aabb
14:00:39 [MattPerry]
zakim, aabb is me
14:00:39 [Zakim]
+MattPerry; got it
14:01:00 [axelpolleres]
axelpolleres has joined #sparql
14:01:04 [alex]
alex has joined #sparql
14:01:52 [bglimm]
yes
14:01:56 [LeeF]
topic: Admin
14:02:01 [LeeF]
PROPOSED: Approve minutes at http://www.w3.org/2009/sparql/meeting/2011-08-02
14:02:05 [Zakim]
+ +3539154aacc
14:02:49 [LeeF]
Regrets: Olivier, Paul, Chimezie
14:02:55 [LeeF]
RESOLVED: Approve minutes at http://www.w3.org/2009/sparql/meeting/2011-08-02
14:03:28 [AndyS]
zakim, who is on the phone?
14:03:28 [Zakim]
On the phone I see bglimm (muted), AndyS, LeeF, SteveH, kasei, cbuilara, MattPerry, +3539154aacc
14:03:46 [alexpassant]
that should be me
14:03:53 [alexpassant]
zakim, +3539154aacc is me
14:03:53 [Zakim]
+alexpassant; got it
14:04:03 [Zakim]
+ +49.897.aadd
14:04:25 [axelpolleres]
Zakim, aadd is probably me
14:04:25 [Zakim]
+axelpolleres?; got it
14:04:40 [bglimm]
LeeF: Next meeting next week
14:05:06 [bglimm]
LeeF: AndyS is set to scribe
14:05:20 [LeeF]
Next regular meeting: 2011-08-16 @ 15:00 UK / 10:00 EST (scribe: Andy)
14:05:48 [bglimm]
LeeF: AndyS, anything from the RDF working group?
14:05:56 [bglimm]
Zakim, umute me
14:05:56 [Zakim]
I don't understand 'umute me', bglimm
14:06:06 [bglimm]
Zakim, mute me
14:06:08 [Zakim]
bglimm was already muted, bglimm
14:06:13 [bglimm]
Zakim, unmute me
14:06:13 [Zakim]
bglimm should no longer be muted
14:06:29 [bglimm]
Zakim, mute me
14:06:29 [Zakim]
bglimm should now be muted
14:06:48 [bglimm]
I didn't get what Andy said
14:06:59 [bglimm]
I have shitty sound :-(
14:07:07 [LeeF]
Andy: Nothing new from RDF WG, but they will probably be reaching a decision on language tagged literals soon
14:07:12 [LeeF]
topic: Federated Query
14:08:16 [bglimm]
LeeF: We have a federated query review. Carlos, will you discuss further changes by email?
14:08:31 [axelpolleres]
q+
14:09:23 [bglimm]
greg: The only major issues is that we agreed to not formally specify the endpoint semantics (?), the section is informative, but is wrong
14:09:28 [LeeF]
ack axelpolleres
14:09:42 [bglimm]
LeeF: I suggest to make the text less formal and keep the section informative
14:10:02 [cbuilara]
+q
14:10:02 [bglimm]
Axel: As long as the section is informative, I think it is ok. We can change it later
14:10:14 [bglimm]
LeeF: I think we should still get the semantics right
14:10:24 [LeeF]
ack cbuilara
14:10:48 [bglimm]
Carlos: The section was to address the changes suggested by Andy
14:11:37 [bglimm]
LeeF: I think we just have to keep working towards convergence
14:11:58 [bglimm]
... Carlos, can you have a look at the comments and further discuss by email?
14:12:02 [bglimm]
Carlos: Ok
14:12:04 [axelpolleres]
I can take an action to check Greg's review and implications as well...
14:12:15 [axelpolleres]
(would make it easier to remember for me ;-))
14:12:17 [LeeF]
ACTION: Axel to look at Greg's review of federated query
14:12:18 [trackbot]
Created ACTION-514 - Look at Greg's review of federated query [on Axel Polleres - due 2011-08-16].
14:12:31 [AndyS]
What I see in doc is not as Carlos described (from a quick skim) is doc in CVS up to date?
14:13:08 [bglimm]
Carlos: I commited a change
14:13:12 [LeeF]
topic: Other documents
14:13:15 [kasei]
that "ranging over all services" is the part I'm not seeing and have a problem with.
14:13:17 [bglimm]
AndyS: I'll read it more carefully then
14:13:42 [bglimm]
LeeF: Axel did work on the overview doc and AndyS reviewed it
14:13:50 [bglimm]
Axel: I partially adressed the comments
14:13:59 [bglimm]
... est we can to by email
14:14:04 [bglimm]
s/est/rest/
14:14:28 [bglimm]
... I will work on it further, but nothing seems critical for publishing
14:14:50 [bglimm]
LeeF: Let's see whether we can publish th overview together with fed. query and the protocol oc
14:15:14 [bglimm]
Axel: We should probably publish as a FPWD to get some feedback
14:15:36 [bglimm]
LeeF: I think it is an important document, but we probably won't get too much feedback on it
14:15:39 [AndyS]
q+ to ask about xmlspec / respec ization
14:16:13 [bglimm]
LeeF: Can anybody else review the overview doc?
14:16:16 [bglimm]
(silence)
14:16:19 [axelpolleres]
q+ to ask one more question in the context off the overview doc
14:16:27 [bglimm]
LeeF: Matt can you review it?
14:16:32 [LeeF]
ACTION: Matthew to review the overview document
14:16:32 [trackbot]
Created ACTION-515 - Review the overview document [on Matthew Perry - due 2011-08-16].
14:16:33 [bglimm]
Matt: Yes, I can review it
14:16:38 [LeeF]
q?
14:16:40 [LeeF]
ack AndyS
14:16:40 [Zakim]
AndyS, you wanted to ask about xmlspec / respec ization
14:18:14 [bglimm]
Axel: I asked on the mailing list about the wiki to HTML script
14:18:19 [bglimm]
Zakim, unmute me
14:18:19 [Zakim]
bglimm should no longer be muted
14:18:33 [LeeF]
zakim, mute bglimm
14:18:33 [Zakim]
bglimm should now be muted
14:18:33 [AndyS]
q+
14:18:41 [bglimm]
Zakim, mute
14:18:41 [Zakim]
I don't understand 'mute', bglimm
14:18:46 [bglimm]
Zakim, mute me
14:18:46 [Zakim]
bglimm was already muted, bglimm
14:18:56 [bglimm]
Sandro said it is a lot of work to set the scrpt up
14:19:08 [bglimm]
It is only worth doing if we use it several times
14:19:25 [axelpolleres]
ok, I can do it manually, just wanted to know whether there's an easy way.
14:20:05 [LeeF]
q?
14:20:07 [LeeF]
ack axelpolleres
14:20:07 [Zakim]
axelpolleres, you wanted to ask one more question in the context off the overview doc
14:20:13 [AndyS]
ack me
14:20:14 [bglimm]
LeeF: I think we can keep working on the wiki for a while and then manually convert to XML
14:20:31 [bglimm]
Axel: Andy had a comment about using named graphs
14:20:56 [bglimm]
.. I can avoid using named graphs, so we can get away without them
14:21:12 [bglimm]
... The other thing was the list of all documents, which we now have in all dcs
14:21:23 [bglimm]
... I used a different order than the other docs
14:21:38 [bglimm]
... I ordered to make a nice story in the overview
14:22:19 [bglimm]
... in some of the other documents, we don't have the list. I suggest to link from all other docs to the overview, where we have the list
14:22:40 [bglimm]
...so we would only have one list, which is in the overview doc
14:22:48 [bglimm]
+1 to Axel's suggestion
14:23:15 [bglimm]
AndyS: I personally don't find it useful to be directed to the overview
14:23:33 [bglimm]
... I find the order we ended up with appropriate
14:24:15 [bglimm]
Axel: I don't have a particular order preference for thenon-overview docs, but I do have one for the overview
14:24:51 [bglimm]
... would you be ok to keep the structure of the document, but adjust the list?
14:24:52 [alex]
alex has joined #sparql
14:25:21 [bglimm]
AndyS: I think the structure should be major areas first and then the minor areas
14:25:21 [SteveH]
I have no preference
14:25:30 [kasei]
I tend to favor Andy's approach
14:26:51 [bglimm]
LeeF: We have slightly more votes for Andy's sugggestion. Axel, can you restructure?
14:27:01 [bglimm]
Axel: Yes and it is anyway a FPWD
14:27:14 [axelpolleres]
I can restructure, finding time is more the issue.
14:27:24 [bglimm]
AndyS: I can't remember how long it takes overall from FPWD to LC
14:27:37 [bglimm]
LeeF: FPWD has no fixed duration
14:27:54 [bglimm]
... LC has a minimum time of three weeks I believe
14:27:57 [axelpolleres]
Shall we tendentially decide for a short name? proposal: sparql11-overview
14:28:21 [bglimm]
LeeF: I am happy with the short name
14:28:29 [bglimm]
AndyS: Looks good
14:28:41 [bglimm]
LeeF: Let's decide when we decide to publish
14:29:21 [bglimm]
... Neither the chairs nor team contacts did make progress on the CVS document (scribed correctly?)
14:29:48 [axelpolleres]
s/CVS/csv-tsv and json/
14:30:07 [bglimm]
... I addressed most of Andy's comments for the protocol doc
14:30:39 [axelpolleres]
it should follow the same rules as FROM FROM NAMED, shouldn't it? (didn't check the mails in detail)
14:30:41 [bglimm]
... we still have some discussions
14:31:17 [bglimm]
... Andy can you outline the usecase that you had on the mailing list?
14:31:41 [bglimm]
Didn't get what Andy said :-(
14:33:33 [AndyS]
AndyS: One possible UC is that the dataset for matching is a new, temporary dataset (maybe retrieved from the web)
14:33:49 [axelpolleres]
Lee's way sounds good, USING/USING NAMED is described in Table 2 of the update doc
14:34:26 [bglimm]
LeeF: Clearly the spec still needs to be improved
14:34:40 [bglimm]
... but the question whether the current model is acceptable
14:35:01 [axelpolleres]
see http://www.w3.org/TR/sparql11-update/#mappingRequestsToOperations
14:35:06 [bglimm]
AndyS: Regardless what we decide, the change will change the update doc
14:36:06 [bglimm]
Axel: Sounds to me that removing the parameters is in line with the update document
14:36:13 [bglimm]
LeeF: If that
14:36:25 [axelpolleres]
Are you sure that we need to change Update, I don't think so.
14:36:29 [bglimm]
LeeF: If you specified it like this, then we might not need a change
14:37:04 [bglimm]
AndyS: We have time to do a last cal for update in parallel with the protocol doc
14:37:23 [bglimm]
LeeF: Are we happy with the semantics of the protocol or should we consider alternatives?
14:37:38 [bglimm]
... AndyS, do you need more time to think about it?
14:38:00 [axelpolleres]
I understand that protocol says that updateReq with parameters simply means that the requested endpoint needs to answer Tr(updateReq,parameters) where Tr just replaces the USING USINGCLAUSES
14:38:05 [bglimm]
AndyS: Yes and we are a small group of people and I want to make sure we address the right problem
14:38:19 [bglimm]
... we are not getting enough input
14:38:33 [axelpolleres]
this can be defined similarly as the tables in the update document, but it is ok if it defined in the protocol dfocument.
14:39:11 [bglimm]
AndyS: Steve, you are another major update implementor. Did you get your head around that?
14:39:26 [bglimm]
Steve: It is not a feature that we currently use, so I can't give input
14:39:43 [bglimm]
LeeF: Anybody else implementing it?
14:40:03 [bglimm]
Axel: How is it for query request now when there are parameters?
14:40:50 [SteveH]
Lee's interpretation is the only one that makes sense to me
14:40:54 [bglimm]
LeeF: The design for update is different because there are different update requests
14:41:18 [axelpolleres]
LeeF: my proposal was that parameters replace any using/using named in any operation part of a request.
14:41:27 [bglimm]
... We don't want to do something that we regret later. Maybe I write up the current design and send it to the list to get feedback
14:41:46 [bglimm]
AndyS: That might be a good idea. Any other points, where you need feedback?
14:42:00 [bglimm]
LeeF: I think I addressed most points, but I will get back to it
14:42:12 [bglimm]
AndyS: Add more example
14:43:16 [bglimm]
LeeF: There is still an issue with characters in query strings
14:44:32 [bglimm]
... I'll rewrite the text, to make it clearer
14:44:50 [LeeF]
ACTION: Lee to email list with proposed design for dataset parameters in protocol for update requests
14:44:50 [trackbot]
Created ACTION-516 - Email list with proposed design for dataset parameters in protocol for update requests [on Lee Feigenbaum - due 2011-08-16].
14:45:44 [bglimm]
LeeF: Test case covering
14:45:55 [bglimm]
... Axel, can you give an overview of the status
14:46:13 [bglimm]
Axel: We had a couple of actions to evaluate coverage
14:46:28 [bglimm]
... 492 and following
14:46:36 [bglimm]
... for update, the action is done
14:46:47 [axelpolleres]
close ACTION-492
14:46:47 [trackbot]
ACTION-492 Check coverage of test suite (on Update) closed
14:47:17 [bglimm]
493 is create a summary on the wiki
14:47:23 [axelpolleres]
http://www.w3.org/2009/sparql/wiki/TestSuiteCoverage
14:48:00 [bglimm]
... For each area we wanted to have statements from implementors as to who implements the features
14:48:26 [bglimm]
... please have a look and add yourself under implementation or remove yourself as appropriate
14:48:50 [bglimm]
... action 494 is query on greg
14:49:02 [bglimm]
greg: I still need to finish it
14:49:11 [AndyS]
JSON results test suite broken.
14:49:13 [bglimm]
Axel: Yes, it is a lot of work
14:49:51 [bglimm]
Axel: 495 is protocol test cases coverage, which should also cover how we test protocol at all
14:49:57 [bglimm]
LeeF: No progress yet
14:50:04 [bglimm]
Axel: Action 496 is on Chime
14:50:47 [bglimm]
... for the graph store protocol
14:50:59 [bglimm]
... it might need an extension for the manifest structure
14:51:26 [axelpolleres]
close ACTION-497
14:51:27 [trackbot]
ACTION-497 Check entailment regimes test case coverage closed
14:51:31 [bglimm]
Axel: Action 497 is on entailment reg.
14:51:36 [bglimm]
.. that is completed
14:51:50 [bglimm]
... That is the last action on test case coverage
14:52:12 [AndyS]
Close ACTION-507
14:52:12 [trackbot]
ACTION-507 Draft text for CSV/TSV status para closed
14:52:28 [AndyS]
Close ACTION-500
14:52:29 [trackbot]
ACTION-500 Review updates in Fed query doc (particularly section 2.4 and 4) for LC readiness closed
14:52:41 [bglimm]
... for update, we have not yet everything covered: http://www.w3.org/2009/sparql/wiki/TestSuiteCoverage#Update
14:52:50 [bglimm]
... Do we need to test silent?
14:53:16 [bglimm]
... In syntax tests that is covered, but sine we cannot test error, it is hard for non-syntax test
14:53:17 [AndyS]
Is there not a EvalFail test type?
14:53:24 [bglimm]
... I propose to not test that
14:53:30 [bglimm]
... any objections?
14:53:39 [bglimm]
... silence=agreement?
14:53:56 [kasei]
q+
14:54:35 [bglimm]
greg: We could create a negative evaluation test
14:54:45 [SteveH]
a test would be DROP SILENT GRAPH <http://nosuchgrah>
14:55:16 [SteveH]
I think minimal testing for SILENT is OK
14:55:22 [SteveH]
but we can test it to an extent
14:55:24 [bglimm]
greg: we could probably add something to make such tests possible
14:55:44 [bglimm]
Axel: So the proposal is to add negative evaluation tests
14:56:28 [bglimm]
greg: We might need a test for success, not a test for the state of the graph store
14:56:48 [bglimm]
AndyS: A test without result, just saying that you somehow got through
14:56:57 [bglimm]
Axel: I will look into that
14:57:30 [bglimm]
LeeF: Shall we record an action?
14:57:35 [axelpolleres]
ACTION: Axel to look into negative evaluation tests and "silent success test" possibility for update tests.
14:57:36 [trackbot]
Created ACTION-517 - Look into negative evaluation tests and "silent success test" possibility for update tests. [on Axel Polleres - due 2011-08-16].
14:58:34 [bglimm]
Axel: Andy suggested to move the negative syntax tests to the syntax test folder
14:59:32 [bglimm]
Axel: It is probably o t o move them there. Some tests are negative syntax tests because we disallowed bnodes, but they have not been moved after the decision
14:59:51 [LeeF]
Suggest just leaving it as is for now then
14:59:59 [bglimm]
Axel: Any volunteers to move the tests?
15:00:52 [bglimm]
Axel: We anyway need to action somebody to create the missing update tests. Maybe that person can then also move the tests.
15:00:57 [axelpolleres]
Zakim, pick a victim
15:00:57 [Zakim]
Not knowing who is chairing or who scribed recently, I propose SteveH
15:01:26 [bglimm]
Steve: No way I can find the time
15:01:35 [bglimm]
LeeF: Let's leave it as it is for now
15:01:42 [bglimm]
Axel: Next is entailment
15:02:13 [bglimm]
... we should also have negative tests for container membership properties
15:02:25 [Zakim]
-alexpassant
15:02:27 [bglimm]
no tests for axiomatic triples yet
15:02:51 [bglimm]
... we could just add an ask query for the triples
15:03:08 [bglimm]
http://www.w3.org/2009/sparql/wiki/TestSuiteCoverage#Entailment
15:04:30 [bglimm]
Axel: It seems we are out of time
15:04:33 [bglimm]
yes
15:04:45 [bglimm]
Axel: Birte, can you look into completing the test cases
15:04:48 [bglimm]
Bire: Yes
15:04:52 [bglimm]
adjourned
15:04:53 [Zakim]
-LeeF
15:04:54 [Zakim]
-MattPerry
15:04:55 [Zakim]
-SteveH
15:04:56 [kasei]
axelpolleres: got a minute for a csv test question?
15:04:58 [MattPerry]
bye
15:05:02 [LeeF]
close ACTION-489
15:05:03 [trackbot]
ACTION-489 Review outcome of ACTION-462 as soon as it's done closed
15:05:04 [Zakim]
-cbuilara
15:05:09 [Zakim]
-AndyS
15:05:10 [LeeF]
close ACTION-509
15:05:10 [trackbot]
ACTION-509 Review latest federated query document for Last Call readiness closed
15:05:24 [axelpolleres]
ACTION: birte to add missing test cases to improve http://www.w3.org/2009/sparql/wiki/TestSuiteCoverage#Entailment
15:05:24 [trackbot]
Created ACTION-518 - Add missing test cases to improve http://www.w3.org/2009/sparql/wiki/TestSuiteCoverage#Entailment [on Birte Glimm - due 2011-08-16].
15:05:31 [bglimm]
Zakim, who is on the phone?
15:05:31 [Zakim]
On the phone I see bglimm (muted), kasei, axelpolleres?
15:05:33 [bglimm]
rrsagent, create minutes
15:05:33 [RRSAgent]
I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2011/08/09-sparql-minutes.html bglimm
15:05:44 [AndyS]
AndyS has left #sparql
15:05:45 [axelpolleres]
Birte, can you take care of the minutes?
15:05:50 [Zakim]
-bglimm
15:06:01 [Zakim]
-kasei
15:06:09 [kasei]
axelpolleres?
15:06:14 [bglimm]
I try, but it says I have insufficient access privileges
15:06:22 [bglimm]
I'll see whether I can get around that
15:06:34 [bglimm]
last time Sandro had to adjust the rights
15:07:25 [AndyS]
AndyS has joined #sparql
15:07:27 [bglimm]
ok, I think the webpage worked
15:13:57 [kasei]
axelpolleres: I think you've committed bad data to the csv expected result files
15:22:10 [alex]
alex has joined #sparql
15:35:01 [Zakim]
disconnecting the lone participant, axelpolleres?, in SW_(SPARQL)10:00AM
15:35:05 [Zakim]
SW_(SPARQL)10:00AM has ended
15:35:06 [Zakim]
Attendees were bglimm, +1.617.553.aaaa, AndyS, LeeF, SteveH, kasei, cbuilara, +1.603.897.aabb, MattPerry, alexpassant, +49.897.aadd, axelpolleres?
17:22:36 [Zakim]
Zakim has left #sparql
18:21:39 [SteveH]
SteveH has joined #sparql
18:21:49 [SteveH_]
SteveH_ has joined #sparql
18:26:35 [alex]
alex has joined #sparql
19:15:31 [AndyS]
AndyS has joined #sparql
20:28:48 [kasei]
did we say the grammar was going to forbid the variable-endpoint form of SERVICE?
20:30:15 [kasei]
I'm eager to figure out something to do with the :service5 test (either remove it, or change it to a negative syntax test...)
20:44:47 [alex]
alex has joined #sparql
20:47:12 [SteveH]
kasei, I think the grammar will allow it, but the text wont
21:03:06 [kasei]
ok. something in Query, though? or only in Fed?
21:04:08 [kasei]
now that you say that, I do recall discussing the grammar allowing it, but overall being unsupported (forbidden?)