IRC log of sparql on 2011-08-23

Timestamps are in UTC.

14:00:41 [RRSAgent]
RRSAgent has joined #sparql
14:00:41 [RRSAgent]
logging to
14:00:43 [trackbot]
RRSAgent, make logs world
14:00:43 [Zakim]
Zakim has joined #sparql
14:00:45 [trackbot]
Zakim, this will be 77277
14:00:45 [Zakim]
ok, trackbot; I see SW_(SPARQL)10:00AM scheduled to start now
14:00:46 [trackbot]
Meeting: SPARQL Working Group Teleconference
14:00:46 [trackbot]
Date: 23 August 2011
14:00:48 [LeeF]
zakim, this will be sparql
14:00:48 [Zakim]
ok, LeeF, I see SW_(SPARQL)10:00AM already started
14:01:02 [Zakim]
14:01:04 [kasei]
Zakim, who is on the phone?
14:01:04 [Zakim]
On the phone I see ??P5, kasei, Bert, MattPerry, pgearon
14:01:33 [Zakim]
14:02:22 [cbuilara]
I'm also on the phone
14:02:41 [LeeF]
zakim, Bert is cbuilara
14:02:41 [Zakim]
+cbuilara; got it
14:02:45 [LeeF]
zakim, ??P5 is Olivier
14:02:47 [Zakim]
+Olivier; got it
14:02:56 [LeeF]
Chair: LeeF
14:03:00 [LeeF]
Scribenick: MattPerry
14:03:46 [LeeF]
Regrets: Birte, Axel, Alex, Andy, Sandro
14:04:17 [LeeF]
14:04:35 [LeeF]
topic: Admin
14:04:43 [LeeF]
PROPOSED: Approve minutes at
14:05:11 [LeeF]
APPROVED: Approve minutes at
14:06:11 [MattPerry]
LeeF: Carlos, can you scribe next week
14:06:15 [cbuilara]
yes, I can
14:06:15 [LeeF]
Next meeting is 30-August, scribe Carlos
14:06:18 [Zakim]
+ +1.216.368.aaaa
14:06:33 [kasei]
Zakim, who is talking?
14:06:44 [Zakim]
kasei, listening for 10 seconds I heard sound from the following: LeeF (90%)
14:06:45 [chimezie]
chimezie has joined #sparql
14:06:52 [LeeF]
zakim, aaaa is chimezie
14:06:52 [Zakim]
+chimezie; got it
14:07:19 [SteveH__]
SteveH__ has joined #sparql
14:07:31 [LeeF]
regrets next week from: alex, axel, sandro
14:07:34 [MattPerry]
LeeF: anyone that can't make it next week?
14:07:43 [SteveH__]
14:07:43 [MattPerry]
14:07:59 [SteveH__]
Zakim, what's the code?
14:07:59 [Zakim]
the conference code is 77277 (tel:+1.617.761.6200, SteveH__
14:08:07 [Zakim]
14:08:10 [SteveH__]
Zakim, ??P11 is me
14:08:10 [Zakim]
+SteveH__; got it
14:08:40 [LeeF]
two things to add: dataset parameters in the protocol, and graph store protocol comments
14:09:00 [LeeF]
topic: BASE & GRAPH & SPARQL 1.1 Update
14:09:14 [MattPerry]
LeeF: question from SteveH on the mailing list
14:09:14 [LeeF]
14:09:28 [SteveH]
14:10:14 [MattPerry]
SteveH: application sending data to triplestore ... wrap insert data URI around turtle, but it didn't work
14:10:41 [LeeF]
ack SteveH
14:10:56 [MattPerry]
SteveH: expected graph to change base URI, but it didn't
14:11:45 [MattPerry]
LeeF: nothing says graph uri is part of base resolution chain
14:12:44 [LeeF] Relative IRIs
14:13:06 [MattPerry]
LeeF: graph clause does not affect base URI
14:13:35 [MattPerry]
LeeF: should we change this behavior ... what is the cost of the change
14:13:45 [MattPerry]
SteveH: we shouldn't change it in query
14:14:25 [MattPerry]
SteveH: it is worth explicitly mentioning this behavior in update
14:15:10 [MattPerry]
pgearon: Yes. we could add an editorial note about this.
14:15:48 [LeeF]
ACTION: Paul to add an editorial note to SPARQL update noting that GRAPH <uri> does not affect the base URI for triples within it for INSERT DATA (c. f.
14:15:48 [trackbot]
Created ACTION-526 - Add an editorial note to SPARQL update noting that GRAPH <uri> does not affect the base URI for triples within it for INSERT DATA (c. f. [on Paul Gearon - due 2011-08-30].
14:16:00 [LeeF]
14:16:08 [LeeF]
topic: dataset parameters in protocol
14:16:44 [MattPerry]
LeeF: don't want to try to pass a resolution because Andy is not here
14:16:47 [LeeF]
14:17:00 [MattPerry]
LeeF: any comments on this?
14:17:06 [SteveH]
14:17:10 [LeeF]
ack SteveH
14:17:16 [kasei]
I took a quick look. Looks OK to me, but don't have any real preference.
14:17:38 [MattPerry]
SteveH: I can see use cases for this proposal and it looks sensible
14:17:47 [SteveH]
…at a first glance
14:18:19 [MattPerry]
LeeF: We can resolve the issue next week when Andy is here
14:18:27 [LeeF]
topic: Comments
14:18:50 [LeeF]
14:19:34 [MattPerry]
LeeF: one new editorial comment from Richard that Andy or SteveH can look at
14:19:58 [chimezie]
14:20:00 [MattPerry]
LeeF: chimezie, you sent some comments right?
14:20:08 [MattPerry]
chimezie: yes
14:20:16 [chimezie]
14:20:40 [MattPerry]
chimezie: first response is to Ivan
14:21:34 [MattPerry]
LeeF: this would be a substantial change
14:22:00 [MattPerry]
... is his suggestion a good idea?
14:22:05 [MattPerry]
chimezie: yes
14:22:24 [MattPerry]
LeeF: we need a group decision becuase this is a substantive change
14:22:58 [MattPerry]
... we can aim for decisions next week
14:24:18 [MattPerry]
LeeF: for second one, I don't think there's any substantive change
14:24:28 [SteveH]
we do the same sniffing, and consider it conformant
14:24:59 [MattPerry]
LeeF: main question is should we support multi-part form
14:25:25 [MattPerry]
... the change would require another last call
14:25:45 [MattPerry]
... there are still documents not in last call though, so it's not quite as bad
14:25:45 [SteveH]
if we are going for another last call I think we should consider dropping the direct POST feature, it's not very useful in our experience
14:26:44 [MattPerry]
SteveH: direct POST feature is not very useful and a significant burden on developers
14:27:28 [SteveH]
…as opposed the for form-based POST request (for Update)
14:27:51 [MattPerry]
chimeze: SJ-1 would require substantive changes
14:28:02 [MattPerry]
14:29:13 [kasei]
i would oppose the suggested requirement for cache-related headers (SJ-1 point 6)
14:29:17 [MattPerry]
chimezie: need to look at SJ-1 more thoroughly
14:30:34 [MattPerry]
kasei: Point 6 is more far reaching ... I support it in theory, but it is a large burden on implementors. Should not use "MUST" wording
14:31:16 [MattPerry]
LeeF: any more comment responses
14:31:28 [MattPerry]
kasei: I have one open for David Booth
14:31:34 [MattPerry]
... hoping for some feedback
14:31:43 [MattPerry]
... DB6
14:33:47 [MattPerry]
kasei: Point 3: issue with range of sd:endpoint property
14:34:22 [MattPerry]
... is this a legitimate issue?
14:34:49 [MattPerry]
LeeF: I'm not concerned ... I would just clarify to David
14:36:36 [MattPerry]
... Point 4: IRI vs URI
14:36:52 [MattPerry]
LeeF: answer should fall out of other relevant specs
14:37:44 [MattPerry]
kasei: Point 7 r.e. testing ... only thing we can test is whether or not it returns RDF and does it have a certain triple
14:38:14 [MattPerry]
LeeF: we could test optional parts to show levels of support
14:38:53 [MattPerry]
kasei: Point 10 -- distinguish between read only and allows update
14:39:14 [AxelPolleres]
AxelPolleres has joined #sparql
14:39:31 [MattPerry]
LeeF: this only one of many such possible properties
14:39:58 [MattPerry]
kasei: Point 11 is syntactic ... I mostly agree but am hesitant to change them
14:41:07 [MattPerry]
... Point 12 same as Point 3
14:41:44 [MattPerry]
... Point 15 -- use of "default dataset" ... it is not used anywhere else
14:42:23 [MattPerry]
LeeF: anyone else have comments
14:42:26 [MattPerry]
14:42:42 [LeeF]
topic: implementation report
14:42:49 [kasei]
14:43:35 [LeeF]
zakim, who's on the phone?
14:43:35 [Zakim]
On the phone I see Olivier, kasei, cbuilara, MattPerry, pgearon, LeeF, chimezie, SteveH__
14:43:44 [MattPerry]
kasei: have reports for RDF::Query and Rasqal
14:43:55 [SteveH]
sparql 1.1 tests: sorry, no
14:43:59 [MattPerry]
LeeF: anyone else have a report
14:44:07 [MattPerry]
chimezie: hope to but not yet
14:44:12 [MattPerry]
pgearon: I haven't
14:44:59 [MattPerry]
LeeF: we talked about using EricP's scripts from SPARQL 1.0 for SPARQL 1.1
14:45:13 [MattPerry]
kasei: EricP's sripts do more stuff
14:45:29 [MattPerry]
LeeF: I think it will be easier to use kasei's scripts
14:45:40 [MattPerry]
kasei: I would be fine with moving my stuff to W3C
14:46:39 [MattPerry]
LeeF: can you bundle your code up?
14:47:11 [MattPerry]
kasei: there's probably quite a bit of pain to move it all over
14:47:28 [MattPerry]
LeeF: we can leave the code where it is
14:48:13 [LeeF]
ACTION: Gregory to let us know where the impl report code is in git and to put the generated report file somewhere in our CVS space
14:48:13 [trackbot]
Created ACTION-527 - Let us know where the impl report code is in git and to put the generated report file somewhere in our CVS space [on Gregory Williams - due 2011-08-30].
14:48:36 [MattPerry]
kasei: the entailment tests aren't marked as optional
14:50:02 [MattPerry]
LeeF: I thought we would have multiple super manifests, so you could pick e.g. a query test suite
14:50:20 [MattPerry]
... right now we have only 1 super manifest
14:50:45 [MattPerry]
chimezie: we should do this so the tests are more modular
14:51:18 [MattPerry]
LeeF: we should at least have spec granularity
14:51:29 [MattPerry]
kasei: I would be happy with that level of granularity
14:52:52 [AxelPolleres]
AxelPolleres has joined #sparql
14:53:05 [MattPerry]
LeeF: anyone not like this way of splitting up tests?
14:53:08 [MattPerry]
14:53:36 [Olivier]
Olivier has joined #sparql
14:53:37 [LeeF]
ACTION: Lee to create new "collective" manifests at the granularity of spec conformance (query, update, entailment, fed query, json results, ...)
14:53:37 [trackbot]
Created ACTION-528 - Create new "collective" manifests at the granularity of spec conformance (query, update, entailment, fed query, json results, ...) [on Lee Feigenbaum - due 2011-08-30].
14:53:59 [kasei]
14:54:13 [LeeF]
ack kasei
14:55:19 [MattPerry]
kasei: we have currently be using mf:requires for optional things ... if we split into separate parts then these annotations may need to change
14:55:43 [MattPerry]
... it's useful to have those annotations on tests
14:56:29 [MattPerry]
chimezie: what does it mean in terms of implementation reports for something to be optional
14:57:09 [MattPerry]
LeeF: the optional tests don't count towards conformance
14:58:10 [MattPerry]
LeeF: any more issues
14:58:21 [MattPerry]
pgearon: Comment DB-5
14:58:48 [MattPerry]
... first item -- add virtual graph or keep copy, add, remove shortcuts
14:59:04 [MattPerry]
... those features are still marked as at risk
14:59:32 [MattPerry]
LeeF: we should basically consider this as feeback to keep these features
15:00:03 [Zakim]
15:00:04 [MattPerry]
pgearon: I'd like to remove the at risk notes for these
15:00:18 [pgearon]
sorry, got kicked off
15:00:21 [MattPerry]
LeeF: I think we should leave at risk and wait for implementation reports
15:00:53 [LeeF]
15:00:54 [chimezie]
15:00:57 [Zakim]
15:01:00 [LeeF]
15:01:12 [Zakim]
15:01:12 [Zakim]
15:01:13 [Zakim]
15:01:13 [Zakim]
15:01:15 [Zakim]
15:01:16 [pgearon]
15:01:16 [Zakim]
15:01:18 [Zakim]
SW_(SPARQL)10:00AM has ended
15:01:20 [Zakim]
Attendees were kasei, MattPerry, pgearon, LeeF, cbuilara, Olivier, +1.216.368.aaaa, chimezie, SteveH__
16:16:09 [AxelPolleres]
AxelPolleres has joined #sparql
17:09:41 [AxelPolleres]
AxelPolleres has joined #sparql
17:14:07 [Zakim]
Zakim has left #sparql
17:27:27 [SteveH_]
SteveH_ has joined #sparql