16:53:31 <RRSAgent> RRSAgent has joined #RDB2RDF
16:53:31 <RRSAgent> logging to http://www.w3.org/2011/12/13-RDB2RDF-irc
16:53:39 <Ashok> chair: Ashok
16:53:48 <Ashok> meeting: RDB2RDF
16:54:16 <Ashok> Regrets:  Michael, Ivan, Joerg, Boris
17:01:52 <juansequeda> juansequeda has joined #rdb2rdf
17:02:18 <dmcneil> dmcneil has joined #RDB2RDF
17:03:36 <nunolopes> nunolopes has joined #rdb2rdf
17:04:01 <nunolopes> Zakim, who is here?
17:04:01 <Zakim> sorry, nunolopes, I don't know what conference this is
17:04:03 <Zakim> On IRC I see nunolopes, dmcneil, juansequeda, RRSAgent, Zakim, Ashok, LeeF, MacTed, iv_an_ru, betehess, trackbot, ericP
17:04:04 <cygri> cygri has joined #rdb2rdf
17:04:21 <cygri> zakim, i'm with nunolopes
17:04:21 <Zakim> sorry, cygri, I do not recognize a party named 'nunolopes'
17:04:44 <cygri> zakim, what's the code?
17:04:44 <Zakim> sorry, cygri, I don't know what conference this is
17:04:52 <cygri> zakim, this is RDB2RDF
17:04:52 <Zakim> ok, cygri; that matches SW_RDB2RDF()12:00PM
17:04:58 <cygri> zakim, what's the code?
17:04:58 <Zakim> the conference code is 7322733 (tel:+1.617.761.6200 sip:zakim@voip.w3.org), cygri
17:05:05 <cygri> zakim, i'm with nunolopes
17:05:05 <Zakim> sorry, cygri, I do not recognize a party named 'nunolopes'
17:05:19 <cygri> zakim, who is here?
17:05:19 <Zakim> On the phone I see Ashok_Malhotra, dmcneil, juansequeda, cygri
17:05:20 <Zakim> On IRC I see cygri, nunolopes, dmcneil, juansequeda, RRSAgent, Zakim, Ashok, LeeF, MacTed, iv_an_ru, betehess, trackbot, ericP
17:05:29 <cygri> zakim, nunolopes is with me
17:05:29 <Zakim> +nunolopes; got it
17:05:43 <Zakim> +Souri
17:06:07 <Ashok> present: Ashok, David, Juan, Nuno, Richard, Souri
17:06:09 <Souri> Souri has joined #rdb2rdf
17:06:13 <Seema> Seema has joined #rdb2rdf
17:06:15 <Zakim> +OpenLink_Software
17:06:25 <MacTed> Zakim, OpenLink_Software is temporarily me
17:06:25 <Zakim> +MacTed; got it
17:06:27 <dmcneil> i can scribe
17:06:27 <MacTed> Zakim, mute me
17:06:27 <Zakim> MacTed should now be muted
17:06:34 <Ashok> present+: Ted, Seema
17:07:09 <Ashok> scribenick:  dmcneil
17:07:22 <Zakim> +Seema
17:07:40 <Ashok> Topic:  Accept the minutes of last meeting http://www.w3.org/2011/11/29-RDB2RDF-minutes.html 
17:08:45 <Ashok> Topic:  Accept minutes of Dec 6 http://www.w3.org/2011/12/06-RDB2RDF-minutes.html 
17:09:33 <ericP> Zakim, please dial ericP-office
17:09:33 <Zakim> ok, ericP; the call is being made
17:09:34 <MacTed> Dec 6 was cancelled
17:09:35 <Zakim> +EricP
17:10:11 <Ashok> Sorry, minutes for Nov 29 ...
17:10:29 <dmcneil> RESOLVED:  Accept the minutes of last meeting http://www.w3.org/2011/11/29-RDB2RDF-minutes.html
17:11:10 <dmcneil> david requested that we add an agenda item to talk about process
17:11:48 <dmcneil> w3c process discussion
17:11:57 <ericP> topic: w3c process discussion
17:12:22 <Ashok> W3C Process document:  http://www.w3.org/2005/10/Process-20051014/tr.html
17:12:41 <dmcneil> per eric the process has evolved a bit since the link above
17:13:01 <cygri> see also ivan's mail: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdb2rdf-wg/2011Nov/0070.html
17:13:19 <dmcneil> we are currently working on last call comments
17:13:33 <dmcneil> next stage is to go to a candidate recommendation where we ask if people have implemented the spec
17:13:37 <dmcneil> we have not started this yet
17:13:58 <dmcneil> it requires 1) defining test cases and 2) talk about what implementors need to report re: test cases
17:14:15 <dmcneil> once we have at least two implementation then we can request that it become a recommendation
17:14:26 <dmcneil> this would be version 1.0 of the new specs
17:14:44 <dmcneil> possibly we would go on to define 1.1, etc.
17:15:20 <dmcneil> it is quite reasonable to omit features from 1.0 in the interest of getting this to a recomendation and allow us to think about features for 1.1
17:15:31 <dmcneil> anything to add eric?
17:15:56 <dmcneil> eric: there is also a PR, proposed recommendation
17:16:22 <dmcneil> there will also be implementation reports from implementors
17:17:16 <dmcneil> probably we would wait for more than two implementations
17:17:46 <Ashok> present+:  Eric
17:17:58 <dmcneil> working group would track what comments we are not accepting
17:18:10 <dmcneil> once you exit CR, it is a short path to "rec"
17:18:37 <dmcneil> we also have to tell the world how to run our tests
17:18:38 <cygri> q+
17:19:05 <dmcneil> cygri: does the test suite need to be finalized to go to CR?
17:19:26 <dmcneil> ericP: no, we get to define the details of what the exit criteria are
17:19:37 <cygri> ack me
17:19:47 <dmcneil> ashok: how formal is the process?
17:20:23 <dmcneil> ericP: the level of formality varies, it is function of the test suite
17:21:30 <dmcneil> +q
17:21:50 <Zakim> -juansequeda
17:21:55 <dmcneil> cygri: so there is the CR stage and then the PR, right?
17:22:11 <Zakim> +juansequeda
17:22:17 <dmcneil> ericP: CR to PR is hard, have to prove implementations
17:22:23 <dmcneil> PR to rec is typically easier
17:22:32 <dmcneil> cygri: question is: how to get to CR
17:22:48 <dmcneil> we know how we want to do the test suite and it is starting to take shape, collecting more test cases
17:22:56 <dmcneil> is that sufficient to get to CR, or is more needed?
17:23:19 <dmcneil> ericP: technically we could probably go to CR immediately, but it is better to have a story more straight before that
17:23:28 <dmcneil> because going to CR generates a buzz of activity from the community
17:23:44 <dmcneil> we also need to define what interoperablity means
17:24:13 <dmcneil> cygri: we also need to address all last call comments to get to CR
17:26:12 <dmcneil> david: where should I look to see changes since last call?
17:26:25 <dmcneil> ericP: at each stage there will be a new doc produced and editors provide a diff
17:26:26 <cygri> Editor's Draft: http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/rdb2rdf/r2rml/
17:27:05 <dmcneil> cygri: end of editors draft list CSV commits with comments
17:27:23 <dmcneil> +q
17:27:36 <cygri> http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/rdb2rdf/wiki/Last_Call_Changes_to_R2RML
17:27:40 <dmcneil> i would hope that all my changes were in response to last call comments, well reasoned, etc
17:28:08 <dmcneil> cygri: that last link is a list of relevant changes, things that would affect implementors working on the spec
17:28:26 <dmcneil> those resources for R2RML should give a pretty good picture of what has changed,
17:28:35 <dmcneil> plus there is the issues list where resolutions should be recorded
17:29:26 <ericP> dmcneil: i'd like a text diff; perhaps i have to create that myself
17:29:55 <ericP> ... is the editor's draft completely at the whim of the editors?
17:30:44 <ericP> cygri: i believe my edits respond to WG decisions
17:32:16 <dmcneil> ashok: the editors should only write things agreed by WG
17:33:31 <dmcneil> ericP: technically the W3C obligation is only at publication time
17:33:36 <dmcneil> otherwise it is up to the team to agree
17:33:46 <ericP> -> http://www.lullabot.com/articles/cvs-annotate-or-what-the-heck-were-they-thinking CVS "Blame"
17:34:12 <dmcneil> cygri seemdsto agree that since we are in last call now, that all changes should be linked to working group / last call comments (?)
17:34:43 <dmcneil> ashok: how do we account for each line in the spec, that is what WG decision led to this text?
17:34:52 <dmcneil> cygri: could dig up the CVS commits
17:34:59 <cygri> ACTION: cygri to email the group regarding cvs history and diffs
17:35:00 <trackbot> Created ACTION-178 - Email the group regarding cvs history and diffs [on Richard Cyganiak - due 2011-12-20].
17:35:09 <dmcneil> ashok: the issue is most relevant for handling formal objections
17:36:20 <cygri> souri, it should be: cvs diff -r 1.162 -r 1.165 Overview.html
17:37:15 <dmcneil> david: how can i see a diff between last call and now
17:37:27 <dmcneil> cygri: csv committers can use cvs diff
17:37:33 <dmcneil> there is also a way to generate html diffs
17:37:40 <dmcneil> not as useful after a large number of changes
17:37:59 <dmcneil> will make a diff of the entire thing to see what it looks like, but probably not useful
17:38:35 <cygri> http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/rdb2rdf/track/products/2
17:38:40 <dmcneil> he can also produce specific diffs that we think are interesting
17:39:28 <dmcneil> david: are there more changes coming
17:39:46 <dmcneil> cygri: that link to remaining issues... each is expected to produce another change to the doc
17:40:00 <dmcneil> ashok: will there be one commit for each?
17:40:12 <dmcneil> cygri: generally, yes, but not always
17:40:54 <dmcneil> ashok: can take two versions and understand the changes in light of the working group changes
17:41:01 <dmcneil> david are you good with that?
17:41:10 <dmcneil> david: sounds like i will need to read two version side-by-side
17:41:14 <dmcneil> topic: ISSUE-75
17:41:30 <Ashok> http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/rdb2rdf/track/issues/75 
17:41:51 <dmcneil> ashok: this is about tableName syntactic sugar
17:41:53 <Souri> Whenever editors commit, they can email a summary of the diffs produced by the "cvs diff " command for others to see.
17:42:10 <dmcneil> david had a proposal on this
17:42:15 <Ashok> [ PROPOSAL: Resolve ISSUE-75 by removing the tableName syntactic sugar and simplifying the R2RML schema documentation and property table to reflect this. ] 
17:42:27 <dmcneil> any discussion?
17:42:48 <juansequeda> +q
17:42:53 <dmcneil> is this acceptable to the group? can we close ISSUE-75 with this proposal?
17:43:13 <ericP> -> http://www.w3.org/2007/10/htmldiff?doc1=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.w3.org%2FTR%2F2011%2FWD-r2rml-20110920%2F&doc2=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.w3.org%2F2001%2Fsw%2Frdb2rdf%2Fr2rml%2F HTML diff of LC to editor's draft
17:43:15 <Souri> +1 to removing this sugar
17:43:18 <dmcneil> juan: is this something we expect to come back when users start using it?
17:43:22 <dmcneil> ashok: who can tell?
17:43:47 <Ashok> ack next
17:43:51 <dmcneil> juan: well richard has experience with it, but i am fine with removing it
17:44:00 <Ashok> ack next
17:44:34 <dmcneil> cygri: ok with dropping it because it is a very minor issue, just one little thing for each triple map, not worth a big fight
17:45:03 <dmcneil> ericP - yes!
17:45:06 <Souri> +q
17:45:12 <dmcneil> ashok: any objections?
17:45:40 <dmcneil> souri: so this means we will not have an rr:tableName hanging from triple maps directly, right?
17:46:15 <dmcneil> ashok: no objections heard
17:46:29 <dmcneil> RESOLUTION: Resolve ISSUE-75 by removing the tableName syntactic sugar and simplifying the R2RML schema documentation and property table to reflect this.
17:46:55 <dmcneil> ashok: three others on the agenda, 72, 57, 56 and 13 minutes
17:47:12 <dmcneil> not worth starting 72, because it will be long/difficult
17:47:21 <dmcneil> others are 57 and 68
17:47:50 <Souri> URL please
17:48:19 <Ashok> Topic:  ISSUE-68: Multiple PredicateMaps in a PredicateObjectMap  http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/rdb2rdf/track/issues/68 
17:48:43 <Souri> q+
17:49:29 <cygri> q+
17:49:50 <dmcneil> souri: if we do this special case, why not others, we don't need this
17:49:52 <Souri> ack souri
17:50:13 <Ashok> ack next
17:50:17 <Souri> P{+}O, PO{+}, ...
17:50:23 <dmcneil> cygri: with syntactic sugar, it is always a tradeoff and always subjective
17:50:34 <dmcneil> but there will be some people who are quite happy to have it
17:50:52 <dmcneil> there are many things that are effecticely sugar, e.g. templates, etc.
17:50:59 <dmcneil> s/effecticely/effectively/
17:51:12 <dmcneil> we could drop this wihtout expressivity, but it would make mapping harder
17:51:33 <dmcneil> the question is: is the WG convinced that the sugar is not too confusing or complicated and provided enough value, always a judgement call
17:52:13 <dmcneil> cygri: this feature is a poor man's RDF schema inferencing
17:52:21 <dmcneil> e.g. employee class from db
17:52:28 <dmcneil> employee is a sub-class of foaf:person
17:52:44 <dmcneil> map that to rdf and do rdf schema inferencing to pick up foaf:agent
17:52:55 <dmcneil> without rdf schema inference engine as part of r2rml implementation
17:53:03 <dmcneil> users can just specify all the types in the mapping file
17:53:24 <dmcneil> with class you can do this, because multiple classes are allowed per triplesmap
17:53:34 <dmcneil> but the same thing holds for sub-properties
17:54:15 <Souri> you can have a single object map URI, and then use multiple POmaps each referring to the same object map URI
17:54:23 <dmcneil> it would be convenient to be able to list this like we can list multiple classes
17:54:43 <dmcneil> ashok: what about souri's idea to also allow multiple objects?
17:54:50 <dmcneil> cygri: that is not needed for rdfs inferencing
17:55:01 <Souri> q+
17:55:11 <dmcneil> ashok: but as a question of symmetry?
17:55:23 <dmcneil> cygri: symmetry not very important
17:55:43 <dmcneil> souri: it is not as hard as you think to do this without the sugar
17:56:00 <dmcneil> see souri's comment above
17:56:33 <dmcneil> the main pattern of s, p, o... if we allow s, p+, o... why not s,p,o+
17:56:41 <dmcneil> and once we add a shortcut, we can never take it away
17:56:59 <dmcneil> this is version 1.0, we are not losing any expressivity, don't see the need for a shortcut at this point, in 1.0
17:57:24 <dmcneil> cygri: turtle is a representation format, not a mapping language so the analogy does not apply
17:57:33 <dmcneil> re: how complicated it is without sugar:
17:57:41 <Souri> q+
17:57:50 <dmcneil> in D2RQ people use a mapping generator that produces a skeleton that is customized
17:58:05 <dmcneil> really nice to go in there and just change the autogenerated property name
17:58:11 <dmcneil> and just add another property name
17:58:36 <dmcneil> many users don't understand D2RQ mapping language, but they do know how to change properties in a generated mapping
17:58:53 <dmcneil> so it is quite easy to replace one name with a few names
17:59:08 <dmcneil> but creating new resources and wiring them up is much harder and requires an understanding of the language
17:59:11 <dmcneil> and of turtle
17:59:17 <Souri> q?
17:59:25 <dmcneil> which is a much higher barrier to creating mapping
17:59:32 <dmcneil> graphical editors will not exist overnight
18:00:03 <dmcneil> also, implementing this feature is not hard, can just explode it out in the graph, it is not a big deal
18:00:09 <dmcneil> we did this in D2RQ
18:00:41 <dmcneil> souri: regarding the analogy to turtle
18:01:44 <dmcneil> there are other uses and other perspectives
18:02:17 <dmcneil> users spend much more time debugging there code, not the mapping
18:02:29 <dmcneil> s/there/their/
18:02:30 <MacTed> different kinds of "users"
18:02:50 <juansequeda> Let's leave any type of syntactic sugar and short cuts for R2RML 1.1
18:02:51 <MacTed> exactly -- implementors vs users of implementations
18:03:06 <dmcneil> cygri: not worried about spec author's time, not worried about implementor's time so much, most worried about users time
18:03:25 <dmcneil> if implementor can do some extra work to save a lot of complexity for users, then that is a good thing
18:03:33 <Souri> why not SPO{+} then? I do not find this "that" beneficial!
18:03:42 <dmcneil> regarding predicates vs objects, the symmetry is not important
18:03:46 <Souri> I am not arguing for symmetry
18:04:04 <Souri> SPO{+} is important and pretty common
18:04:12 <MacTed> not just saving time -- also removing potentially large barrier to entry/usage.
18:04:12 <MacTed> I think the SPO{+} is also valuable, but not because it's symmetric
18:04:33 <dmcneil> ashok: we are out of time
18:04:47 <dmcneil> we can't resolve this today
18:05:05 <dmcneil> juan suggested holding off on sugar until 1.1
18:05:20 <dmcneil> we have this issue plus ISSUE-72 and ISSUE-57
18:05:40 <dmcneil> we have to resolve these... please think about what you can do and what compromises can be made
18:05:45 <Souri> for ISSUE-72 please see URL: http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/rdb2rdf/wiki/Translating_Database_Values_to_RDF_Terms
18:06:05 <Zakim> -Souri
18:06:06 <Zakim> -cygri
18:06:07 <Zakim> -juansequeda
18:06:07 <Zakim> -Ashok_Malhotra
18:06:09 <Zakim> -Seema
18:06:12 <Zakim> -MacTed
18:06:23 <Ashok> Sorry, I introduced the word "symmetry" --- perhaps that was inappropriate
18:06:39 <Ashok> rrsagent, make logs public
18:06:55 <Ashok> rrsagent, draft minutes
18:06:55 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2011/12/13-RDB2RDF-minutes.html Ashok
18:07:07 <Zakim> -dmcneil
18:40:37 <cygri> ACTION: boris to review test cases for any that use rr:tableName, rr:sqlQuery or rr:sqlVersion directly on a triples maps; this syntactic sugar is removed by the ISSUE-75 resolution
18:40:38 <trackbot> Created ACTION-179 - Review test cases for any that use rr:tableName, rr:sqlQuery or rr:sqlVersion directly on a triples maps; this syntactic sugar is removed by the ISSUE-75 resolution [on Boris Villazón-Terrazas - due 2011-12-20].
18:40:44 <cygri> ACTION-179?
18:40:44 <trackbot> ACTION-179 -- Boris Villazón-Terrazas to review test cases for any that use rr:tableName, rr:sqlQuery or rr:sqlVersion directly on a triples maps; this syntactic sugar is removed by the ISSUE-75 resolution -- due 2011-12-20 -- OPEN
18:40:44 <trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/rdb2rdf/track/actions/179
19:05:00 <Zakim> disconnecting the lone participant, EricP, in SW_RDB2RDF()12:00PM
19:05:01 <Zakim> SW_RDB2RDF()12:00PM has ended
19:05:05 <Zakim> Attendees were Ashok_Malhotra, dmcneil, juansequeda, cygri, nunolopes, Souri, MacTed, Seema, EricP
19:31:02 <nunolopes> nunolopes has joined #rdb2rdf
20:15:12 <Zakim> Zakim has left #RDB2RDF