IRC log of sparql on 2012-01-03

Timestamps are in UTC.

14:57:49 [RRSAgent]
RRSAgent has joined #sparql
14:57:49 [RRSAgent]
logging to
14:57:51 [trackbot]
RRSAgent, make logs world
14:57:51 [Zakim]
Zakim has joined #sparql
14:57:53 [trackbot]
Zakim, this will be 77277
14:57:53 [Zakim]
I do not see a conference matching that name scheduled within the next hour, trackbot
14:57:54 [trackbot]
Meeting: SPARQL Working Group Teleconference
14:57:54 [trackbot]
Date: 03 January 2012
14:58:09 [AxelPolleres]
chair: Axel Polleres
14:58:19 [AxelPolleres]
14:58:35 [MattPerry]
MattPerry has joined #sparql
14:59:37 [bglimm]
bglimm has joined #sparql
14:59:39 [kasei]
AxelPolleres: are we using Zakim or freeconference?
14:59:42 [AndyS1]
AndyS1 has joined #sparql
14:59:55 [AxelPolleres]
kasei: just trying...
15:00:07 [SteveH]
I'm on freeconference
15:00:15 [AxelPolleres]
Zakim ist down still... let's use freeconference (see
15:00:36 [Olivier]
Olivier has joined #sparql
15:01:12 [bglimm]
So I have to dial to the US? No voip? That might be difficult
15:01:27 [SteveH]
it's not a very good line from the UK, quite noisy
15:01:55 [cbuilara]
I can't connect to that phone :(
15:02:44 [AxelPolleres]
We have Andy, Matt, SteveH, Greg, on the phone... who else?
15:03:16 [AxelPolleres]
Birte, sorry, maybe Sandro has some alternative?
15:03:24 [AxelPolleres]
Paul joined
15:03:38 [SteveH]
bglimm, if you can call a UK number I can join you to the call?
15:03:43 [sandro]
I thought the site said something about internet calls.
15:03:55 [AxelPolleres]
(carlos, birte having technical problems...)
15:03:55 [SteveH]
sandro, I couldn't find anything just now
15:04:36 [AndyS1]
And the local chemical warning siren is testing (I hope) here :-|
15:04:52 [AxelPolleres]
birte joined
15:05:10 [AxelPolleres]
sandro joined
15:05:48 [sandro]
sandro has changed the topic to: No Zakim today. 1-213-342-3000 code 4264131
15:05:49 [Olivier]
I joined the telcon
15:05:58 [AxelPolleres]
Olivier joined
15:06:11 [bglimm]
I called the US number via Skype
15:06:26 [bglimm]
but you have to have Skype credit to do that
15:06:33 [AxelPolleres]
15:06:47 [sandro]
(fwiw, Google Voice can't call this number :-( )
15:06:59 [bglimm]
AxelPolleres: Happy new year everybody
15:07:08 [AxelPolleres]
topic: admin
15:07:09 [bglimm]
... we had several resolutions last year
15:07:20 [AxelPolleres]
PROPOSED: Approve minutes at
15:07:46 [AndyS1]
15:07:47 [bglimm]
...Comments on the minutes?
15:07:50 [bglimm]
15:07:57 [AxelPolleres]
RESOLVED: Approve minutes at
15:08:10 [bglimm]
Next regular call in a week's time
15:08:11 [AxelPolleres]
Next regular meeting: 2012-01-10 @ 15:00 UK / 10:00 EST (scribe: Axel Polleres)
15:08:20 [bglimm]
Axel is next on the scribe list
15:08:32 [bglimm]
No report from the RDF WG?
15:08:43 [AndyS1]
Nothing to report
15:09:04 [bglimm]
We skip this then and go to the publication issues
15:09:30 [bglimm]
We have several documents to be published, but Jan 2nd is no longer an option
15:09:41 [bglimm]
... We need to decide on another publication date
15:09:52 [bglimm]
... Jan 5th was discussed on the mailing list
15:09:58 [bglimm]
... Is that feasible?
15:10:29 [bglimm]
Sandro: I think 5th is the first available pub date
15:10:39 [bglimm]
Axel: We could go for Jan 9th as well
15:11:02 [bglimm]
Sandro: We can publish Mondays and Thursdays
15:11:18 [bglimm]
Axel: So we could decide for 5th or 10th Jan
15:11:25 [AxelPolleres]
5th or 10th... try for the earliest possible.
15:11:30 [bglimm]
... We could try the earliest possible
15:11:57 [bglimm]
... I used a wrong text on possibly skipping CR
15:12:33 [bglimm]
... it is almost as required, but I suggest to stick exactly to the resolution text
15:13:07 [AxelPolleres]
Change the text referring to possibly skipping CR as per last time's resolution:
15:13:39 [bglimm]
AxelPolleres: I asked myself whether we should do something with the change logs
15:13:55 [bglimm]
... Some documents still have change logs from previous versions
15:14:01 [bglimm]
... These should be removed
15:14:42 [AxelPolleres]
let's go through documents
15:14:46 [bglimm]
... we go through the docs one by one
15:14:51 [bglimm]
.. starting with Query
15:15:12 [AxelPolleres]
Query... mail from Andy:
15:15:39 [bglimm]
We need to check that it is LC and put in the required comment text
15:15:56 [bglimm]
The text for possibly skipping CR is the one from the resolution
15:16:29 [bglimm]
Query is ready to go
15:16:30 [AndyS1]
query HTML checked into CVS
15:16:37 [AxelPolleres]
Entailment regimes ready to go?
15:16:39 [AndyS1]
... under pub/
15:16:39 [bglimm]
AxelPolleres: Entailment Regimes?
15:16:46 [bglimm]
bglimm: Ready to go
15:17:01 [AxelPolleres]
15:17:13 [AxelPolleres]
15:17:46 [AxelPolleres]
15:18:03 [bglimm]
AxelPolleres: documents should be in the pub/20120102/ folder
15:19:09 [bglimm]
AxelPolleres: Update still had two open comments
15:19:17 [AxelPolleres] ...
15:19:28 [bglimm]
... at least they are makred as open on the comments page
15:19:39 [bglimm]
BV-5 and NL-1
15:19:44 [AxelPolleres]
DB-5 and NL-1 look still open
15:19:59 [bglimm]
15:20:21 [bglimm]
The first one is addressed,, but the wiki was not updated
15:21:13 [AndyS1] exists, not linked
15:21:21 [bglimm]
Paul?: NL-1 is about query and not update
15:22:19 [bglimm]
AxelPolleres: It probably doen't make sense to touch the doc now, we can leave that for a future version of the spec
15:22:25 [AndyS1]
(one moment)
15:23:03 [bglimm]
... NL-1 is definitely about Query
15:23:28 [bglimm]
AndyS1: Looking at the use-case he must do a full construct
15:23:32 [bglimm]
... due to the filters
15:23:54 [bglimm]
... I can see some restricted cases that we could address with the current design
15:24:34 [bglimm]
... It seems to be a query that should return all touched triples
15:24:43 [LeeF]
It's why we put the limitation in
15:24:47 [bglimm]
SteveH: We have discussed this at one of the F2Fs
15:24:47 [LeeF]
because doing the alternative was too... icky
15:25:06 [bglimm]
AxelPolleres: We didn't want to tough this
15:25:16 [bglimm]
.... extensions could be put on the future issues list
15:25:33 [bglimm]
... we could use our standard reply for future issues
15:25:43 [bglimm]
... I can draft a reply along these lines
15:25:51 [bglimm]
... unless there are other volunteer
15:26:04 [bglimm]
AndyS1: I don't even fully understand his example
15:26:16 [bglimm]
AxelPolleres: I'll just do a high level reply
15:26:52 [bglimm]
AndyS: I wouldn't go into extensions of the short form. There is always the long form for complicated use cases.
15:27:08 [AxelPolleres]
ACTION: Axel to draft a reply to NL-1 pointing to stay on the basic level for the CONSTRUCT WHERE shortcut, and that there's the full form for more complex cases
15:27:09 [trackbot]
Could not create new action (failed to parse response from server) - please contact sysreq with the details of what happened.
15:27:09 [trackbot]
Could not create new action (unparseable data in server response: local variable 'd' referenced before assignment) - please contact sysreq with the details of what happened.
15:27:52 [AndyS1]
His use case does seem clear (to me) what the template would be if UNION and filters involved (e.g. UNION arms have partial overlaps of patterns used)
15:27:58 [bglimm]
AxelPolleres: No actions either. Comments seem addressable, so Update is ready to go
15:28:07 [bglimm]
... Service Descriptions?
15:28:23 [bglimm]
Greg: not ready yet due to pub rule checking issues
15:28:46 [bglimm]
Sorry I dropped out, but not due to lack of credit
15:28:50 [bglimm]
will dial in again
15:29:11 [AndyS1]
scribenick: AndyS1
15:29:26 [AxelPolleres]
greg: will turn to protocol once SD is ready
15:29:49 [AndyS1]
end document state review
15:30:17 [AndyS1]
for the review period of 4 weeks, exactly 4 weeks or one month?
15:30:27 [AxelPolleres]
15:30:58 [AndyS1]
sandro: does not matter - prefer to end day before a WG TC
15:31:01 [bglimm]
I am back
15:31:41 [AxelPolleres]
let's choose a date 1 day before the coming WG meeting after 4 weeks have passed...
15:32:26 [bglimm]
AxelPolleres: The next point on the agenda is to check on the status of the other documents
15:32:37 [AndyS1]
axel: other docs - graphstore protocol
15:32:37 [bglimm]
... we didn't decide on the graph store protocoll yet
15:32:48 [bglimm]
... can anybody report?
15:34:03 [AxelPolleres]
plan to publish soon, sandro reports to mainly have agreed on the crucial points with Chime.
15:34:12 [bglimm]
?: I am not sure what the status is now
15:34:28 [AndyS1]
My preference is to see text in doc (inc ptr to changed text to make it easier to find)
15:34:33 [bglimm]
... I talked to Chime, but I am not sure what his schedule is
15:34:33 [AxelPolleres]
...right after publication, let's focus on it in next week's telecon and try to resolve wording issues by then per email
15:35:02 [bglimm]
AxelPolleres: Let's discuss by email, so we can decide about the doc next week
15:35:15 [bglimm]
... We got some feedback for protocol
15:35:23 [bglimm]
... I am not sure how to treat this
15:35:24 [AxelPolleres] ... an early last call comment?
15:35:29 [bglimm]
... as an early LC comment?
15:35:39 [bglimm]
Sandro?: I guess that makes sense
15:36:29 [bglimm]
AxelPolleres: Is there anything that says we address need another last call if we make changes
15:36:42 [AxelPolleres]
Lee: only critical thing could be conformance criteria
15:37:14 [bglimm]
LeeF: The doc says that if you implement query then you need to do it in one of the 3 specified ways
15:37:41 [bglimm]
... it is not clear whether you have to implement all 3
15:38:10 [bglimm]
.... it is not too clear whether you are performant if you support one of those or whether you have to support all 3
15:38:25 [AndyS1]
Any reason not to require GET ?
15:38:46 [bglimm]
AxelPolleres: If a clarification requires another call, shouldn't we wait another week to get clarity about this?
15:39:03 [kasei]
I'd be happy supporting a requirement for all of the 3 styles.
15:39:04 [bglimm]
Sandro: We could add an at risk note
15:39:35 [bglimm]
LeeF: Can we check on IRC whether we have consensus about this?
15:40:27 [kasei]
15:40:41 [bglimm]
... if we follow Gregs proposal to require all three, it is a higher burden on implementors
15:41:03 [bglimm]
AndyS: If we require all three, we should say why
15:41:07 [LeeF]
ack kasei
15:41:28 [bglimm]
kasei: If we only require GET and give the option to also implement the others
15:41:37 [bglimm]
... and describe this in the SDs?
15:41:57 [bglimm]
AndyS: But it is not just between a client and server
15:42:11 [bglimm]
... to see iwhether GET works you might just have to try and see whether it works
15:42:32 [bglimm]
AxelPolleres: What worries me is that we don't have any text there yet
15:42:44 [bglimm]
LeeF: But it is just one sentence in the Conformance section
15:43:19 [SteveH]
I don't think we have a easy way to implement direct POST
15:43:37 [bglimm]
.... The client doesn't have to implement all three, only the server
15:44:21 [bglimm]
LeeF, could you scribe the proposed text?
15:44:25 [AxelPolleres]
Server MUST implement all forms, client MUST implement one form to be compliant
15:44:58 [AxelPolleres]
15:44:58 [bglimm]
LeeF: Is anybody really worried if we have MUST for all three forms for the sever?
15:45:31 [bglimm]
Steve: The problem we have is that the HTTP server is custom code. We would have to add another one apart from GET and POST
15:45:36 [bglimm]
... not a real blocker
15:47:23 [AxelPolleres]
discussion about motivation for direct POST
15:47:47 [bglimm]
AxelPolleres: LeeF, will you draft a text and email that?
15:48:05 [bglimm]
LeeF: Yes, I'll mail it and we can see whether there are objections to that
15:48:47 [bglimm]
AxelPolleres: Putting that text at risk doesn't really help us
15:49:55 [AxelPolleres]
PROPOSED: Lee to draft conformance text on the mailinglist which we put into the publication of protocol, unless objections (adendum to resolution
15:50:15 [bglimm]
AxelPolleres: Would this address Thomas comment?
15:50:51 [bglimm]
LeeF: There is a fair amount of work to be done, but should be ok
15:51:05 [bglimm]
+1 to the proposal
15:51:32 [AxelPolleres]
RESOLVED: Lee to draft conformance text on the mailinglist which we put into the publication of protocol, unless objections (adendum to resolution
15:51:34 [bglimm]
AxelPolleres: No objections?
15:52:02 [bglimm]
AxelPollere: Lee, will you have any time to work on the publication?
15:52:09 [bglimm]
LeeF: Not sure
15:52:28 [bglimm]
AxelPolleres: I'll try to look at the documents tomorrow evening
15:52:52 [AxelPolleres]
Axel: Lee, please take care of protocol, I will check all other docs tomorrow night.
15:53:07 [AxelPolleres]
15:53:07 [bglimm]
15:53:20 [AndyS1]
AndyS1 has left #sparql
15:53:37 [AxelPolleres]
rrsagent, make records public
15:53:38 [bglimm]
RRSAgent, make logs world
15:53:56 [AxelPolleres]
15:58:50 [SteveH]
SteveH has joined #sparql
16:37:42 [bglimm]
bglimm has joined #sparql
17:18:44 [AxelPolleres]
AxelPolleres has joined #sparql
18:32:58 [AndyS]
AndyS has joined #sparql