14:54:27 RRSAgent has joined #sparql 14:54:27 logging to http://www.w3.org/2011/11/22-sparql-irc 14:54:29 RRSAgent, make logs world 14:54:29 Zakim has joined #sparql 14:54:31 Zakim, this will be 77277 14:54:31 ok, trackbot; I see SW_(SPARQL)10:00AM scheduled to start in 6 minutes 14:54:32 Meeting: SPARQL Working Group Teleconference 14:54:32 Date: 22 November 2011 14:54:36 zakim, this will be SPARQL 14:54:36 ok, LeeF; I see SW_(SPARQL)10:00AM scheduled to start in 6 minutes 14:54:39 Chair: LeeF 14:54:42 Scribe: chimezie 14:54:57 Agenda: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-dawg/2011OctDec/0194.html 14:57:03 SW_(SPARQL)10:00AM has now started 14:57:08 +??P2 14:57:13 zakim, ??P2 is me 14:57:13 +cbuilara; got it 14:59:19 + +33.4.92.38.aaaa 14:59:27 bglimm has joined #sparql 14:59:38 Zakim, aaaa is me 14:59:42 +Olivier; got it 14:59:46 +kasei 14:59:49 +??P3 15:00:12 +sandro 15:00:18 Zakim, ??P3 is me 15:00:18 +bglimm; got it 15:00:27 Zakim, mute me 15:00:27 bglimm should now be muted 15:00:47 +[IPcaller] 15:00:52 zakim, IP is me 15:00:52 sorry, AndyS, I do not recognize a party named 'IP' 15:00:56 zakim, IPCaller is me 15:00:56 +AndyS; got it 15:01:54 swh has joined #sparql 15:02:26 +pgearon 15:02:38 zakim, who is on the phone? 15:02:38 On the phone I see cbuilara, Olivier, kasei, bglimm (muted), sandro, AndyS, pgearon 15:02:40 +??P13 15:02:47 Zakim, ??P13 is me 15:02:47 +LeeF 15:02:48 +swh; got it 15:02:58 zakim, who's on the phone? 15:02:59 On the phone I see cbuilara, Olivier, kasei, bglimm (muted), sandro, AndyS, pgearon, swh, LeeF 15:03:32 topic: Admin 15:03:47 PROPOSED: Approve Last week's minutes: http://www.w3.org/2009/sparql/meeting/2011-11-15 15:03:53 +??P5 15:04:17 zakim, ??P5 is me 15:04:17 +NickH; got it 15:04:20 RESOLVED: Approve Last week's minutes: http://www.w3.org/2009/sparql/meeting/2011-11-15 15:04:25 zakim, mute me 15:04:25 NickH should now be muted 15:04:39 Next meeting: 2011-Nov-29 at standard time 15:05:04 I will check 15:05:23 Regrets: AxelPolleres 15:05:33 I'm unlikely to be around next week (on holiday, in theory) 15:05:49 yes, I can scribe next week 15:05:56 thanks, NickH! 15:06:00 scribe next week: NickH 15:06:04 AndyS: no new news from RDF WG 15:06:31 topic: query document 15:08:04 LeeF: ready for review next week? 15:08:13 AndyS: I have a couple of major things - order by with aggregates and escape sequences 15:08:44 AndyS: possibly ready next week 15:09:57 Zakim, unmute me 15:09:57 bglimm should no longer be muted 15:11:47 in the interests of expedience, I suggest we should "Consider ORDER BY count(*)" and not do it 15:12:16 AndyS: I will send escaping changes to RDF WG 15:12:40 Can't you just do (COUNT(*) AS ?x) ... ORDER BY ?x ? 15:13:50 AndyS: I think it's a one line change to make it allowed in ORDER BY, just missing right now 15:14:09 swh: I'm not sure if that's true, need to look through the algebra to see if all the information you need is available at the time that you run the ORDER BY 15:15:15 Zakim, mute me 15:15:15 bglimm should now be muted 15:15:23 LeeF: don't want to spend weeks and weeks on this (would rather punt), but hopefully we can see this week if it's easy or not 15:16:09 topic: Overview & Fed Documents 15:16:16 LeeF: we published them, yay! thanks to sandro, carlos, and axel 15:16:31 topic: Graph Store Protocol Document 15:17:07 ACTION: Sandro to review the graph store protocol document 15:17:08 Created ACTION-563 - Review the graph store protocol document [on Sandro Hawke - due 2011-11-29]. 15:17:14 ACTION: Andy to review the graph store protocol document 15:17:14 Created ACTION-564 - Review the graph store protocol document [on Andy Seaborne - due 2011-11-29]. 15:17:23 topic: Service Description Document 15:17:27 LeeF: Awaiting a review from Axel 15:17:40 topic: Entailment Regimes Document 15:17:48 Zakim, unmute me 15:17:48 bglimm should no longer be muted 15:18:18 LeeF: Birte forwarded review from Markus, now working on the changes 15:18:39 bglimm: part way through, don't expect to need group discussion for any of the comments 15:19:06 bglimm: Markus prefers that RDF and RDFS systems check consistency, but we've decided against that 15:19:13 topic: Update Document 15:19:18 -NickH 15:19:18 Zakim, mute me 15:19:19 bglimm should now be muted 15:19:40 LeeF: Status? 15:19:48 pgearon: not checked off on the wiki, but i think it's all done 15:19:57 +??P5 15:19:58 zakim, ??P5 is me 15:19:58 +NickH; got it 15:20:02 zakim, mute me 15:20:02 NickH should now be muted 15:21:15 AndyS: memory is that we're not going to do a 2nd LC for update 15:21:19 pgearon: matches my understanding 15:21:23 LeeF: I'm getting old & forgetful 15:22:06 topic: Protocol 15:23:25 LeeF: received and acted on 3 reviews 15:23:38 ... all implemented except for reference and link cleanup 15:24:37 LeeF: should we be asking for advice on what goes into the security section for the update part of the protocol? 15:26:03 http://www.w3.org/2009/sparql/docs/protocol-1.1/Overview.xml#policy-security 15:26:13 sandro: I can ask Thomas Roessler to take a quick look at it 15:27:18 (issues with browsers & and frag IDs with XML files) 15:27:30 Fragment doesn't work for me either (not even by copying only after pressing return again) also Firefox 15:28:42 ACTION: Andy to check revised 2.2.3 in protocol doc http://www.w3.org/2009/sparql/docs/protocol-1.1/Overview.xml#update-dataset 15:28:43 Created ACTION-565 - Check revised 2.2.3 in protocol doc http://www.w3.org/2009/sparql/docs/protocol-1.1/Overview.xml#update-dataset [on Andy Seaborne - due 2011-11-29]. 15:29:53 topic: Comments 15:30:38 Zakim, mute me 15:30:38 bglimm was already muted, bglimm 15:30:50 Zakim, unmute me 15:30:50 bglimm should no longer be muted 15:31:45 Zakim, mute me 15:31:45 bglimm should now be muted 15:34:13 topic: Issues 15:34:18 LeeF: can maybe close open issues 15:34:20 ISSUE-33? 15:34:20 ISSUE-33 -- Can we use the correct meaning of the full slate of HTTP errors when specifying the update protocol via WSDL? -- open 15:34:20 http://www.w3.org/2009/sparql/track/issues/33 15:35:19 -NickH 15:35:53 PROPOSED: Close ISSUE-33 based on current protocol editor's draft which allows protocol implementations to use any HTTP success or failure response codes as long as they're used per the semantics of HTTP 15:36:06 seconded 15:36:19 RESOLVED: Close ISSUE-33 based on current protocol editor's draft which allows protocol implementations to use any HTTP success or failure response codes as long as they're used per the semantics of HTTP 15:36:25 ISSUE-60? 15:36:25 ISSUE-60 -- What does the response to a SPARQL Update request look like in SPARQL protocol? -- open 15:36:25 http://www.w3.org/2009/sparql/track/issues/60 15:36:45 +??P5 15:36:45 zakim, ??P5 is me 15:36:46 +NickH; got it 15:36:47 zakim, mute me 15:36:47 NickH should now be muted 15:37:56 PROPOSED: Close ISSUE-60 based on current protocol editor's draft which doesn't mandate any response body for an update request but allows them to be included at an implementation's discretion 15:38:08 +1 15:38:11 seconded 15:38:18 RESOLVED: Close ISSUE-60 based on current protocol editor's draft which doesn't mandate any response body for an update request but allows them to be included at an implementation's discretion 15:38:25 ISSUE-65? 15:38:25 ISSUE-65 -- Does the SPARQL Protocol need a single form parameter that can take either a query string or an update request string? -- open 15:38:25 http://www.w3.org/2009/sparql/track/issues/65 15:39:38 PROPOSED: Close ISSUE-65 with no change, with the answer being "no" 15:40:08 seconded 15:40:18 0 15:40:28 RESOLVED: Close ISSUE-65 with no change, with the answer being "no", kasei abstaining 15:40:36 trackbot, close ISSUE-33 15:40:37 ISSUE-33 Can we use the correct meaning of the full slate of HTTP errors when specifying the update protocol via WSDL? closed 15:40:42 trackbot, close ISSUE-60 15:40:42 ISSUE-60 What does the response to a SPARQL Update request look like in SPARQL protocol? closed 15:40:45 trackbot, close ISSUE-65 15:40:45 ISSUE-65 Does the SPARQL Protocol need a single form parameter that can take either a query string or an update request string? closed 15:41:23 close ACTION-542 15:41:23 ACTION-542 Check pubrules for fed query. closed 15:41:30 close ACTION-561 15:41:30 ACTION-561 Review SPARQL protocol document closed 15:43:01 close ACTION-555 15:43:02 ACTION-555 Review update as soon as it's ready closed 15:43:06 http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-dawg/2011OctDec/0143.html 15:44:09 close ACTION-510 15:44:10 ACTION-510 Look at http://www.w3.org/2009/sparql/wiki/CommentResponse:DB-6 closed 15:44:20 close ACTION-516 15:44:20 ACTION-516 Email list with proposed design for dataset parameters in protocol for update requests closed 15:44:27 close ACTION-292 15:44:28 ACTION-292 Make sure text on transactionality/concurrency gets added to protocol document closed 15:44:37 close ACTION-511 15:44:37 ACTION-511 Ask team (Ivan) about whether the patch in http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-dawg-comments/2011Jul/0007 can be applied without any W3C process closed 15:44:51 close ACTION-478 15:44:52 ACTION-478 Figure out what the status of tests for the new SPARQL 1.1 functions are closed 15:45:28 ACTION-366? 15:45:28 ACTION-366 -- Lee Feigenbaum to remind Sandro about registering JSON & Update MIME types, and checking on the Query and XML format status -- due 2011-01-25 -- OPEN 15:45:28 http://www.w3.org/2009/sparql/track/actions/366 15:46:59 http://www.w3.org/2009/sparql/docs/json-results/json-results.xml#content-type 15:47:49 http://www.iana.org/assignments/media-types/application/index.html 15:48:10 ACTION: Sandro to figure out what has to happen to register the MIME types for JSON results and Update requests 15:48:10 Created ACTION-566 - Figure out what has to happen to register the MIME types for JSON results and Update requests [on Sandro Hawke - due 2011-11-29]. 15:48:27 Need sparql-update 15:48:44 close ACTION-366 15:48:44 ACTION-366 Remind Sandro about registering JSON & Update MIME types, and checking on the Query and XML format status closed 15:49:50 close ACTION-562 15:49:50 ACTION-562 Figure out why old text is in the protocol document for specifying RDF datasets in an update operation closed 15:50:10 (our procedure: http://www.w3.org/2002/06/registering-mediatype ) 15:50:19 http://www.w3.org/TR/sparql11-results-json/ is LC 15:50:48 close ACTION-401 15:50:48 ACTION-401 Draft an answer for JB-4 closed 15:51:26 close ACTION-560 15:51:26 ACTION-560 Make a best effort attempt to review or delegate a review for protocol closed 15:52:10 -NickH 15:52:24 close ACTION-549 15:52:24 ACTION-549 Review Graph store protocol for 2nd LC/CR(?) as soon as it's ready. closed 15:52:34 +??P0 15:52:45 close action-558 15:52:45 ACTION-558 Discuss with lee where to put "future work" closed 15:52:50 Zakim, ??P0 is me 15:52:50 +NickH; got it 15:52:55 Zakim, mute me 15:52:55 NickH should now be muted 15:53:01 close action-479 15:53:01 ACTION-479 Finalize overview doc closed 15:53:12 close action-514 15:53:12 ACTION-514 Look at Greg's review of federated query closed 15:53:34 close action-545 15:53:34 ACTION-545 Follow up with sandro on final publication of Overview and Fed query at earliest possible date (tentatively 10 november) closed 15:53:45 close action-559 15:53:45 ACTION-559 Review protocol closed 15:53:54 close action-548 15:53:55 ACTION-548 Review Graph store protocol for 2nd LC/CR(?) as soon as it's ready. closed 15:54:04 LeeF, I think http://www.w3.org/2009/sparql/docs/query-1.1/rq25.xml#operatorExtensibility covers that action 15:55:30 -LeeF 15:55:32 -sandro 15:55:34 -pgearon 15:55:34 -swh 15:55:35 -Olivier 15:55:37 bye 15:55:44 -NickH 15:55:45 -kasei 15:55:46 -bglimm 15:55:50 -AndyS 15:55:53 -cbuilara 15:55:54 SW_(SPARQL)10:00AM has ended 15:55:56 Attendees were cbuilara, +33.4.92.38.aaaa, Olivier, kasei, sandro, bglimm, AndyS, pgearon, LeeF, swh, NickH 15:58:04 LeeF, http://www.w3.org/2009/sparql/docs/query-1.1/rq25.xml#extensionFunctions is what I was after, it is in there 16:39:58 cbuilara has left #sparql 18:10:41 Zakim has left #sparql 18:38:54 MacTed has joined #sparql 19:21:53 swh has joined #sparql