14:57:49 <RRSAgent> RRSAgent has joined #sparql
14:57:49 <RRSAgent> logging to http://www.w3.org/2012/01/03-sparql-irc
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> agenda: http://www.w3.org/2009/sparql/wiki/Agenda-2012-01-03
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  http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-dawg/2012JanMar/0009.html)
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> agenda: http://www.w3.org/2009/sparql/wiki/Agenda-2012-01-03
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 http://www.w3.org/2009/sparql/meeting/2011-12-20
15:07:46 <AndyS1> +1
15:07:47 <bglimm> ...Comments on the minutes?
15:07:50 <bglimm> (silence)
15:07:57 <AxelPolleres> RESOLVED: Approve minutes at http://www.w3.org/2009/sparql/meeting/2011-12-20
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: http://www.w3.org/2009/sparql/meeting/2011-12-20#resolution_8
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: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-dawg/2012JanMar/0007.html
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> pub/20120102/WD-sparql11-query-201120105/
15:17:13 <AxelPolleres> pub/20120102/WD-sparql11-query-20120105/
15:17:46 <AxelPolleres> pub/20120102/
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> http://www.w3.org/2009/sparql/wiki/Comments#Last_Call_comments ...
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> s/BV-5/DB-5/
15:20:21 <bglimm> The first one is addressed,, but the wiki was not updated
15:21:13 <AndyS1> http://www.w3.org/2009/sparql/wiki/CommentResponse:DB-5 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> sandro?
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> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-dawg/2012JanMar/0003.html ... 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> q+
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> s/compliant/conformant/
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 http://www.w3.org/2009/sparql/meeting/2011-12-20#resolution_6)
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 http://www.w3.org/2009/sparql/meeting/2011-12-20#resolution_6)
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> adjourned
15:53:07 <bglimm> adjourned
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> http://www.w3.org/2012/01/03-sparql-irc
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