None.
There are some format problems with the chatlog. Please correct them and reload this page. They are labeled on this page in a red box, like this message.
It may be helpful to
13:56:24 <RRSAgent> logging to http://www.w3.org/2010/05/27-sparql-irc
RRSAgent IRC Bot: logging to http://www.w3.org/2010/05/27-sparql-irc ←
13:56:27 <LeeF> RRSAgent, make logs public
Lee Feigenbaum: RRSAgent, make logs public ←
13:58:35 <Zakim> Team_(sparql)13:55Z has now started
Zakim IRC Bot: Team_(sparql)13:55Z has now started ←
13:58:41 <Zakim> +Lee_Feigenbaum
Zakim IRC Bot: +Lee_Feigenbaum ←
13:59:18 <AndyS> Just skyping up ...
Andy Seaborne: Just skyping up ... ←
13:59:32 <Zakim> +kasei
Zakim IRC Bot: +kasei ←
14:00:21 <Zakim> +[IPcaller]
Zakim IRC Bot: +[IPcaller] ←
14:00:35 <AndyS> zakim, [IPcaller] is me
Andy Seaborne: zakim, [IPcaller] is me ←
14:00:35 <Zakim> +AndyS; got it
Zakim IRC Bot: +AndyS; got it ←
14:01:23 <pgearon> I'm being told that the code 77277# is not valid
Paula Gearon: I'm being told that the code 77277# is not valid ←
14:01:30 <LeeF> it's 772775# today
Lee Feigenbaum: it's 772775# today ←
14:01:38 <pgearon> thanks
Paula Gearon: thanks ←
14:01:41 <LeeF> yup
Lee Feigenbaum: yup ←
14:01:46 <pgearon> I see it now
Paula Gearon: I see it now ←
14:01:48 <LeeF> zakim, code?
Lee Feigenbaum: zakim, code? ←
14:01:51 <Zakim> the conference code is 772775 (tel:+1.617.761.6200 tel:+33.4.89.06.34.99 tel:+44.117.370.6152), LeeF
Zakim IRC Bot: the conference code is 772775 (tel:+1.617.761.6200 tel:+33.4.89.06.34.99 tel:+44.117.370.6152), LeeF ←
14:01:58 <Zakim> +pgearon
Zakim IRC Bot: +pgearon ←
14:03:09 <Zakim> +MattPerry
Zakim IRC Bot: +MattPerry ←
14:04:07 <AndyS> http://www.w3.org/2009/sparql/docs/property-paths/Overview.xml#Outstanding_Issues
Andy Seaborne: http://www.w3.org/2009/sparql/docs/property-paths/Overview.xml#Outstanding_Issues ←
14:04:17 <AndyS> esp. duplicates.
Andy Seaborne: esp. duplicates. ←
14:04:32 <Zakim> +OlivierCorby
Zakim IRC Bot: +OlivierCorby ←
14:04:39 <LeeF> Scribenick: LeeF
(Scribe set to Lee Feigenbaum)
14:04:43 <pgearon> I'll take it over
Paula Gearon: I'll take it over ←
14:05:15 <kasei> and I've got an issue/question to add to the list
Gregory Williams: and I've got an issue/question to add to the list ←
14:05:19 <LeeF> AndyS: most important issue is the cardinality of results
Andy Seaborne: most important issue is the cardinality of results ←
14:06:22 <LeeF> ... other issues listed at http://www.w3.org/2009/sparql/docs/property-paths/Overview.xml#Outstanding_Issues
... other issues listed at http://www.w3.org/2009/sparql/docs/property-paths/Overview.xml#Outstanding_Issues ←
14:08:23 <LeeF> kasei: 0-length paths -- what are the possible nodes that can match the ends of that path?
Gregory Williams: 0-length paths -- what are the possible nodes that can match the ends of that path? ←
14:10:18 <LeeF> ... if you have 2 variables on the end of a 0-length path, what do they match? document suggests infinite solutions
... if you have 2 variables on the end of a 0-length path, what do they match? document suggests infinite solutions ←
14:10:31 <LeeF> ACTION: Greg to send test cases for 0-length paths to mailing list
ACTION: Greg to send test cases for 0-length paths to mailing list ←
14:10:31 <trackbot> Created ACTION-251 - Send test cases for 0-length paths to mailing list [on Gregory Williams - due 2010-06-03].
Trackbot IRC Bot: Created ACTION-251 - Send test cases for 0-length paths to mailing list [on Gregory Williams - due 2010-06-03]. ←
14:10:45 <kasei> Zakim, mute me
Gregory Williams: Zakim, mute me ←
14:10:45 <Zakim> kasei should now be muted
Zakim IRC Bot: kasei should now be muted ←
14:11:10 <LeeF> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-dawg/2010AprJun/att-0275/Property_Path_Diagram.pdf
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-dawg/2010AprJun/att-0275/Property_Path_Diagram.pdf ←
14:11:51 <LeeF> AndyS: in diagram 1, there are 2 simple paths from A to Z
Andy Seaborne: in diagram 1, there are 2 simple paths from A to Z ←
14:11:58 <LeeF> ... no cycles in it
... no cycles in it ←
14:12:31 <AndyS> :A :p{2} ?Z :: how many answers
Andy Seaborne: :A :p{2} ?Z :: how many answers ←
14:13:03 <LeeF> Do you get ?Z=:Z once or twice?
Do you get ?Z=:Z once or twice? ←
14:13:17 <AndyS> { :A :p ?X . ?X :p ?Z }
Andy Seaborne: { :A :p ?X . ?X :p ?Z } ←
14:13:32 <LeeF> ... if you wrote that graph pattern explicitly, you'd get 2 answers
... if you wrote that graph pattern explicitly, you'd get 2 answers ←
14:13:59 <pgearon> q+
Paula Gearon: q+ ←
14:14:13 <LeeF> ack pgearon
ack pgearon ←
14:14:35 <LeeF> pgearon: the way SPARQL works now, i expected to get 2 results out of this
Paula Gearon: the way SPARQL works now, i expected to get 2 results out of this ←
14:14:48 <LeeF> ... i used to do set thinking everywhere, but had to change that thinking to be SPARQL-compliant
... i used to do set thinking everywhere, but had to change that thinking to be SPARQL-compliant ←
14:15:03 <LeeF> ... according to SPARQL thinking, I would really expect to see 2 results come out of this even though the extra variable is projected away
... according to SPARQL thinking, I would really expect to see 2 results come out of this even though the extra variable is projected away ←
14:15:10 <AndyS> zakim, who is on the phone?
Andy Seaborne: zakim, who is on the phone? ←
14:15:10 <Zakim> On the phone I see Lee_Feigenbaum, kasei (muted), AndyS, pgearon, MattPerry, OlivierCorby
Zakim IRC Bot: On the phone I see Lee_Feigenbaum, kasei (muted), AndyS, pgearon, MattPerry, OlivierCorby ←
14:15:18 <LeeF> { :A :p [ :p ?Z ] } also has 2 results
{ :A :p [ :p ?Z ] } also has 2 results ←
14:16:11 <LeeF> AndyS: think it's not that hard to implement because a breadth-first search will get you the right answers
Andy Seaborne: think it's not that hard to implement because a breadth-first search will get you the right answers ←
14:17:52 <LeeF> <discussion of wild life>
<discussion of wild life> ←
14:18:12 <AndyS> Diagram 2: { :A :p{2} ?Z }
Andy Seaborne: Diagram 2: { :A :p{2} ?Z } ←
14:18:42 <LeeF> AndyS: in diagram 2, the same pattern ...
Andy Seaborne: in diagram 2, the same pattern ... ←
14:18:48 <LeeF> ... you get the same answers form diagram 1
... you get the same answers form diagram 1 ←
14:18:58 <LeeF> ... but there's also A->C->C
... but there's also A->C->C ←
14:19:16 <LeeF> ... so there is a solution with ?Z=:C ?
... so there is a solution with ?Z=:C ? ←
14:19:53 <LeeF> AndyS: ?Z=:C is not a simple path solution, because you've gone around a loop
Andy Seaborne: ?Z=:C is not a simple path solution, because you've gone around a loop ←
14:20:03 <LeeF> pgearon: but no potential to get confused between paths?
Paula Gearon: but no potential to get confused between paths? ←
14:20:32 <LeeF> AndyS: using technical sense of "simple path" from graph theory
Andy Seaborne: using technical sense of "simple path" from graph theory ←
14:21:30 <AndyS> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Graph_%28mathematics%29
Andy Seaborne: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Graph_%28mathematics%29 ←
14:21:36 <pgearon> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Path_(graph_theory)
Paula Gearon: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Path_(graph_theory) ←
14:22:34 <LeeF> AndyS: I think there should be 3 solutions, ?Z = :Z, :Z, :C
Andy Seaborne: I think there should be 3 solutions, ?Z = :Z, :Z, :C ←
14:22:49 <pgearon> +1 to 3 solutions
Paula Gearon: +1 to 3 solutions ←
14:22:56 <AndyS> Diagram 2: { :A :p{3} ?Z }
Andy Seaborne: Diagram 2: { :A :p{3} ?Z } ←
14:23:23 <LeeF> ... excludes the A->B->Z route
... excludes the A->B->Z route ←
14:23:34 <LeeF> A->C->C->C
A->C->C->C ←
14:23:38 <LeeF> A->C->C->Z
A->C->C->Z ←
14:24:23 <LeeF> pgearon: I get into trouble here because when I see a loop I start dropping off
Paula Gearon: I get into trouble here because when I see a loop I start dropping off ←
14:25:04 <AndyS> Diagram 2: { :A :p* ?Z }
Andy Seaborne: Diagram 2: { :A :p* ?Z } ←
14:25:11 <AndyS> Diagram 2: { :A :p* ?end }
Andy Seaborne: Diagram 2: { :A :p* ?end } ←
14:26:14 <AndyS> { :A :p{3} ?Z } == { :A :p ?e . ?e :p ?f . ?f :p ?end }
Andy Seaborne: { :A :p{3} ?Z } == { :A :p ?e . ?e :p ?f . ?f :p ?end } ←
14:26:25 <LeeF> What happens if we say that fixed-length property paths have exact cardinality requirements but variable-length paths (* or +) have distinct cardinality semantics?
What happens if we say that fixed-length property paths have exact cardinality requirements but variable-length paths (* or +) have distinct cardinality semantics? ←
14:27:50 <MattPerry> I like Lee's idea
Matthew Perry: I like Lee's idea ←
14:29:06 <LeeF> AndyS: sounds like a reasonable scheme, we should do it by defining the cardinality for each operator
Andy Seaborne: sounds like a reasonable scheme, we should do it by defining the cardinality for each operator ←
14:29:06 <AndyS> elt{n,}
Andy Seaborne: elt{n,} ←
14:29:25 <AndyS> elt{n,m}
Andy Seaborne: elt{n,m} ←
14:30:30 <pgearon> LeeF: expect that patterns that can be viewed as a shortcut for a fixed length expression should have the same cardinality as the fully expended expression
Lee Feigenbaum: expect that patterns that can be viewed as a shortcut for a fixed length expression should have the same cardinality as the fully expended expression [ Scribe Assist by Paula Gearon ] ←
14:31:05 <AndyS> Diagram 2: { :A :p* ?Z }
Andy Seaborne: Diagram 2: { :A :p* ?Z } ←
14:31:06 <LeeF> PROPOSED: Fixed-length path solutions should be the same as their expansion in triples with all variables projected; variable-length paths have distinct cardinality semantics
PROPOSED: Fixed-length path solutions should be the same as their expansion in triples with all variables projected; variable-length paths have distinct cardinality semantics ←
14:31:12 <pgearon> LeeF: patterns that have an unbounded length with have a cardinality based on ignoring repeated nodes that appear in loops
Lee Feigenbaum: patterns that have an unbounded length with have a cardinality based on ignoring repeated nodes that appear in loops [ Scribe Assist by Paula Gearon ] ←
14:32:08 <LeeF> Not distinct as in "only one ?Z"... distinct as in "don't add more from following loops"
Not distinct as in "only one ?Z"... distinct as in "don't add more from following loops" ←
14:32:14 <pgearon> {:A :p{2,} ?Z}
Paula Gearon: {:A :p{2,} ?Z} ←
14:32:15 <LeeF> AndyS: not sure how to say that
Andy Seaborne: not sure how to say that ←
14:32:44 <AndyS> Diagram 2: {:A :p{4,} ?end }
Andy Seaborne: Diagram 2: {:A :p{4,} ?end } ←
14:33:25 <MattPerry> How about number of paths that do not repeat a node?
Matthew Perry: How about number of paths that do not repeat a node? ←
14:33:59 <AndyS> { :A :p{3} ?Z } == { :A :p ?e . ?e :p ?f . ?f :p ?end }
Andy Seaborne: { :A :p{3} ?Z } == { :A :p ?e . ?e :p ?f . ?f :p ?end } ←
14:34:18 <LeeF> MattPerry: use the criteria of not repeating a node for the unbounded cases
Matthew Perry: use the criteria of not repeating a node for the unbounded cases ←
14:34:29 <LeeF> AndyS: so finite ones would still be expansion into alternatives
Andy Seaborne: so finite ones would still be expansion into alternatives ←
14:34:49 <AndyS> :p{2,3} =?= :p :p :p?
Andy Seaborne: :p{2,3} =?= :p :p :p? ←
14:35:30 <LeeF> elt{n,}
elt{n,} ←
14:35:43 <LeeF> elt{n}
elt{n} ←
14:35:50 <AndyS> :p{2,} =?= :p :p :p*
Andy Seaborne: :p{2,} =?= :p :p :p* ←
14:36:20 <LeeF> card(elt{n,}) is card(elt{n}) + card(paths longer than n that don't repeat a node) ?
card(elt{n,}) is card(elt{n}) + card(paths longer than n that don't repeat a node) ? ←
14:36:49 <kasei> i don't envy having to come up with spec text for that...
Gregory Williams: i don't envy having to come up with spec text for that... ←
14:36:50 <pgearon> { :A :p ?Z } = { { :A :p ?e . ?e :p ?Z } UNION { :A :p ?e . ?e :p ?f . ?f :p ?Z } }
Paula Gearon: { :A :p{2,3} ?Z } = { { :A :p{2,3} ?e . ?e :p{2,3} ?Z } UNION { :A :p{2,3} ?e . ?e :p{2,3} ?f . ?f :p{2,3} ?Z } } ←
14:37:28 <LeeF> s/:p/:p{2,3}14:37:46 <pgearon> corrected to: { :A :p{2,3} ?Z } = { { :A :p ?e . ?e :p ?Z } UNION { :A :p ?e . ?e :p ?f . ?f :p ?Z } }
Paula Gearon: corrected to: { :A :p{2,3} ?Z } = { { :A :p ?e . ?e :p ?Z } UNION { :A :p ?e . ?e :p ?f . ?f :p ?Z } } ←
14:38:50 <kasei> lhs results = Z, Z, C
Gregory Williams: lhs results = Z, Z, C ←
14:38:55 <AndyS> LHS: A-B-Z, A-C-Z, A-C-C
Scribe problem: the name 'LHS' does not match any of the 63 active names. Either change the name used, or request the list of names be altered.Active names: Ahmed Ezzat Alexandre Passant Andrea Westerinen Andrei Lopatenko Andy Seaborne Axel Polleres Bijan Parsia Birte Glimm Bryan Thompson Chimezie Ogbuji Cui Tao Daniel Schutzer Dave Beckett David Charboneau David Newman Davide Palmisano Dhanapalan Kulandai Vadivel Dirk Colaert Dirk-Willem van Gulik Edward Thomas Elias Torres Enrico Franconi Eric Prud'hommeaux Frank Careccia Fred Zemke Gregory Williams Hiroyuki Sato Ivan Mikhailov Ivan Herman Jacek Kopecký Jari Vänttinen Jean-François Baget Jeen Broekstra Jeff Pollock John Clark Jos De Roo Kendall Clark Kevin Wilkinson Lee Feigenbaum Luke Wilson-Mawer Matthew Perry Michael Smith Michele Minno Nicholas Humfrey Nophadol Jekjantuk Olivier Corby Orri Erling Paula Gearon Prateek Jain Rachel Yager Roland Schwaenzl Sandro Hawke Sergio Tessaris Simon Johnston Souripriya Das Steve Harris Sven Groppe Timo Westkämper Tommi Koivula Yoshio Fukushige Zakim IRC Bot Trackbot IRC Bot RRSAgent IRC Bot
Unknown LHS: A-B-Z, A-C-Z, A-C-C [ Scribe Assist by Andy Seaborne ] ←
14:39:00 <LeeF> card(elt{n,m}) = SUM(i = n to m) of card(elt{i}) ?
card(elt{n,m}) = SUM(i = n to m) of card(elt{i}) ? ←
14:39:26 <kasei> sounds right
Gregory Williams: sounds right ←
14:39:35 <AndyS> RHS: A-C-C-Z, A-C-C-C
Scribe problem: the name 'RHS' does not match any of the 63 active names. Either change the name used, or request the list of names be altered.Active names: Ahmed Ezzat Alexandre Passant Andrea Westerinen Andrei Lopatenko Andy Seaborne Axel Polleres Bijan Parsia Birte Glimm Bryan Thompson Chimezie Ogbuji Cui Tao Daniel Schutzer Dave Beckett David Charboneau David Newman Davide Palmisano Dhanapalan Kulandai Vadivel Dirk Colaert Dirk-Willem van Gulik Edward Thomas Elias Torres Enrico Franconi Eric Prud'hommeaux Frank Careccia Fred Zemke Gregory Williams Hiroyuki Sato Ivan Mikhailov Ivan Herman Jacek Kopecký Jari Vänttinen Jean-François Baget Jeen Broekstra Jeff Pollock John Clark Jos De Roo Kendall Clark Kevin Wilkinson Lee Feigenbaum Luke Wilson-Mawer Matthew Perry Michael Smith Michele Minno Nicholas Humfrey Nophadol Jekjantuk Olivier Corby Orri Erling Paula Gearon Prateek Jain Rachel Yager Roland Schwaenzl Sandro Hawke Sergio Tessaris Simon Johnston Souripriya Das Steve Harris Sven Groppe Timo Westkämper Tommi Koivula Yoshio Fukushige Zakim IRC Bot Trackbot IRC Bot RRSAgent IRC Bot
Unknown RHS: A-C-C-Z, A-C-C-C [ Scribe Assist by Andy Seaborne ] ←
14:40:24 <LeeF> This may be a new motivation for people to start using REDUCED
This may be a new motivation for people to start using REDUCED ←
14:40:27 <LeeF> :)
:) ←
14:42:39 <pgearon> { :A :p{2,} ?Z } = { { :A :p ?e . ?e :p ?Z } UNION { :A :p+ ?Z MINUS { { :A :p ?Z } UNION { :A :p ?Z } } }
Paula Gearon: { :A :p{2,} ?Z } = { { :A :p ?e . ?e :p ?Z } UNION { :A :p+ ?Z MINUS { { :A :p ?Z } UNION { :A :p ?Z } } } ←
14:43:12 <pgearon> { :A :p{2,} ?Z } = { { :A :p ?e . ?e :p ?Z } UNION { :A :p+ ?Z MINUS { :A :p ?Z } } }
Paula Gearon: { :A :p{2,} ?Z } = { { :A :p ?e . ?e :p ?Z } UNION { :A :p+ ?Z MINUS { :A :p ?Z } } } ←
14:43:28 <kasei> Zakim, unmute me
Gregory Williams: Zakim, unmute me ←
14:43:28 <Zakim> kasei should no longer be muted
Zakim IRC Bot: kasei should no longer be muted ←
14:43:40 <LeeF> AndyS: MINUS messes up cardinality
Andy Seaborne: MINUS messes up cardinality ←
14:45:47 <pgearon> I had originally thought of :p{2,} as being :p+ minus the 1-step case
Paula Gearon: I had originally thought of :p{2,} as being :p+ minus the 1-step case ←
14:46:10 <LeeF> PROPOSED: The cardinality of solutions to fixed-length paths is the same as the cardinality of solutions to the path expanded into triple patterns (with all variables projected); the cardinality of solutions to variable-length paths is the cardinality of solutions via paths that do not repeat nodes; the cardinality of solutions to paths combining fixed anv ariable length (elt{n,} ) is a combination of the fixed definition plus the variable definition for paths long
PROPOSED: The cardinality of solutions to fixed-length paths is the same as the cardinality of solutions to the path expanded into triple patterns (with all variables projected); the cardinality of solutions to variable-length paths is the cardinality of solutions via paths that do not repeat nodes; the cardinality of solutions to paths combining fixed anv ariable length (elt{n,} ) is a combination of the fixed definition plus the variable definition for paths long ←
14:46:27 <pgearon> but the new approach has me thinking that the :p{2,} as being a mix between two types of cardinality rules
Paula Gearon: but the new approach has me thinking that the :p{2,} as being a mix between two types of cardinality rules ←
14:47:50 <pgearon> { :A :p{2,} ?Z } = { { :A :p ?e . ?e :p ?Z } UNION { :A :p+ ?Z MINUS { { :A :p ?Z } UNION { :A :p ?e . ?e :p ?Z } } }
Paula Gearon: { :A :p{2,} ?Z } = { { :A :p ?e . ?e :p ?Z } UNION { :A :p+ ?Z MINUS { { :A :p ?Z } UNION { :A :p ?e . ?e :p ?Z } } } ←
14:50:30 <LeeF> zakim, who's on the phone?
zakim, who's on the phone? ←
14:50:30 <Zakim> On the phone I see Lee_Feigenbaum, kasei, AndyS, pgearon, MattPerry, OlivierCorby
Zakim IRC Bot: On the phone I see Lee_Feigenbaum, kasei, AndyS, pgearon, MattPerry, OlivierCorby ←
14:51:25 <kasei> { :A :p{2,} ?Z }
Gregory Williams: { :A :p{2,} ?Z } ←
14:51:37 <kasei> { :A :p+ ?Z MINUS { { :A :p ?Z } UNION { :A :p ?e . ?e :p ?Z } } }
Gregory Williams: { :A :p+ ?Z MINUS { { :A :p ?Z } UNION { :A :p ?e . ?e :p ?Z } } } ←
14:51:55 <kasei> { :A :p ?Z }
Gregory Williams: { :A :p ?Z } ←
14:52:11 <AndyS> { :A :p{2,} ?Z } ==> { :A :p/:p ?x . ?x :p* ?Z } ??
Andy Seaborne: { :A :p{2,} ?Z } ==> { :A :p/:p ?x . ?x :p* ?Z } ?? ←
14:53:35 <kasei> :p/:p is just :p{2}?
Gregory Williams: :p/:p is just :p{2}? ←
14:53:58 <kasei> A->C->Z->Q
Gregory Williams: A->C->Z->Q ←
14:53:58 <kasei> A->Q
Gregory Williams: A->Q ←
14:55:04 <Zakim> This conference is in overtime; all ports must be freed
Zakim IRC Bot: This conference is in overtime; all ports must be freed ←
14:55:45 <LeeF> zakim, extend conference
zakim, extend conference ←
14:55:45 <Zakim> I don't understand 'extend conference', LeeF
Zakim IRC Bot: I don't understand 'extend conference', LeeF ←
14:56:00 <LeeF> zakim, 60 more minutes
zakim, 60 more minutes ←
14:56:00 <Zakim> I don't understand '60 more minutes', LeeF
Zakim IRC Bot: I don't understand '60 more minutes', LeeF ←
14:56:25 <kasei> :p+ will result in bindings C, Z, Q, Q
Gregory Williams: :p+ will result in bindings C, Z, Q, Q ←
14:58:21 <Zakim> -Lee_Feigenbaum
Zakim IRC Bot: -Lee_Feigenbaum ←
14:59:05 <OlivierCorby> what about (p1/p2/p3)* where p1/p2 stay on same node ?
Olivier Corby: what about (p1/p2/p3)* where p1/p2 stay on same node ? ←
15:00:42 <AndyS> (:p{3})*
Andy Seaborne: (:p{3})* ←
15:02:13 <kasei> issue is whether repeated nodes restriction affects internal nodes of (p1/p2/p3) when considering a pattern of (p1/p2/p3)*
Gregory Williams: issue is whether repeated nodes restriction affects internal nodes of (p1/p2/p3) when considering a pattern of (p1/p2/p3)* ←
15:02:19 <AndyS> (p1/p2/p3)
Andy Seaborne: (p1/p2/p3) ←
15:02:50 <MattPerry> I would say treat (p1/p2/p3) as a unit and don't repeat that
Matthew Perry: I would say treat (p1/p2/p3) as a unit and don't repeat that ←
15:03:28 <kasei> AndyS: best approach is to provide more detailed description and try test cases
Andy Seaborne: best approach is to provide more detailed description and try test cases [ Scribe Assist by Gregory Williams ] ←
15:04:11 <kasei> next issue
Gregory Williams: next issue ←
15:04:17 <kasei> Zakim, mute me
Gregory Williams: Zakim, mute me ←
15:04:45 <AndyS> ?a !(rdf:type) ?b
Andy Seaborne: ?a !(rdf:type) ?b ←
15:04:46 <Zakim> kasei should now be muted
Zakim IRC Bot: kasei should now be muted ←
15:05:11 <AndyS> ?x ! ( rdf:type | ^rdf:type)* ?y
Andy Seaborne: ?x ! ( rdf:type | ^rdf:type)* ?y ←
15:05:55 <pgearon> AndyS: can I find a connection between two individuals, but I don't want to find the connection by going up the class hierarchy
Andy Seaborne: can I find a connection between two individuals, but I don't want to find the connection by going up the class hierarchy [ Scribe Assist by Paula Gearon ] ←
15:06:07 <kasei> what is the issue here?
Gregory Williams: what is the issue here? ←
15:06:47 <pgearon> AndyS: issue is complexity of implementation
Andy Seaborne: issue is complexity of implementation [ Scribe Assist by Paula Gearon ] ←
15:06:52 <AndyS> ?x (!( rdf:type | ^rdf:type)) * ?y
Andy Seaborne: ?x (!( rdf:type | ^rdf:type)) * ?y ←
15:07:29 <AndyS> [^A-Z]
Andy Seaborne: [^A-Z] ←
15:08:58 <kasei> yeah, seems reasonable
Gregory Williams: yeah, seems reasonable ←
15:09:14 <AndyS> !( rdf:type | ^rdf:type)
Andy Seaborne: !( rdf:type | ^rdf:type) ←
15:09:21 <AndyS> !(...)
Andy Seaborne: !(...) ←
15:09:26 <pgearon> AndyS: Seems like a reasonable thing to want. Will people consider it for possible problems?
Andy Seaborne: Seems like a reasonable thing to want. Will people consider it for possible problems? [ Scribe Assist by Paula Gearon ] ←
15:09:50 <kasei> chaining of the unbounded modifiers scares me: (!(:p+))*
Gregory Williams: chaining of the unbounded modifiers scares me: (!(:p+))* ←
15:10:07 <kasei> Zakim, unmute me
Gregory Williams: Zakim, unmute me ←
15:10:07 <Zakim> kasei should no longer be muted
Zakim IRC Bot: kasei should no longer be muted ←
15:10:43 <kasei> and we consider ^:p as a single thing?
Gregory Williams: and we consider ^:p as a single thing? ←
15:10:57 <pgearon> Can it be re-expressed as: { ?x (! rdf:type)* ?y } UNION { ?y (! rdf:type)* ?x } ???
Paula Gearon: Can it be re-expressed as: { ?x (! rdf:type)* ?y } UNION { ?y (! rdf:type)* ?x } ??? ←
15:11:37 <kasei> probably not if you combine it with more complex paths
Gregory Williams: probably not if you combine it with more complex paths ←
15:13:22 <kasei> :X :type :Y ^:type :Z
Gregory Williams: :X :type :Y ^:type :Z ←
15:13:36 <MattPerry> +1 for this
Matthew Perry: +1 for this ←
15:14:14 <kasei> I think the analog to [^abc] is the right guide here. just atomic things inside the negation.
Gregory Williams: I think the analog to [^abc] is the right guide here. just atomic things inside the negation. ←
15:14:31 <MattPerry> +1 to kasei
Matthew Perry: +1 to kasei ←
15:14:41 <pgearon> +1 to kasei
Paula Gearon: +1 to kasei ←
15:14:49 <kasei> well, atomic with |
Gregory Williams: well, atomic with | ←
15:15:21 <pgearon> AndyS: will write a proposal for that
Andy Seaborne: will write a proposal for that [ Scribe Assist by Paula Gearon ] ←
15:16:21 <AndyS> PROPOSED: Add negated property class (c.f regex [^abc]) where the negated property set is a a distjunction of fwd and backward properties only
PROPOSED: Add negated property class (c.f regex [^abc]) where the negated property set is a a distjunction of fwd and backward properties only ←
15:17:31 <AndyS> \
Andy Seaborne: \ ←
15:17:47 <kasei> ☃
15:17:54 <kasei> return of the snowman
Gregory Williams: return of the snowman ←
15:17:57 <AndyS> ~
Andy Seaborne: ~ ←
15:19:14 <pgearon> AndyS: next issue - the one about lengths
Andy Seaborne: next issue - the one about lengths [ Scribe Assist by Paula Gearon ] ←
15:19:19 <kasei> is there a syntax proposal for that?
Gregory Williams: is there a syntax proposal for that? ←
15:20:10 <MattPerry> I don't know how useful the length is without the actual path
Matthew Perry: I don't know how useful the length is without the actual path ←
15:20:25 <pgearon> AndyS: gets more complex with syntax, and also now you have to consider the actual path taken
Andy Seaborne: gets more complex with syntax, and also now you have to consider the actual path taken [ Scribe Assist by Paula Gearon ] ←
15:21:47 <kasei> pgearon: can't see how useful it is without an actual path description, which you could get the length from directly.
Paula Gearon: can't see how useful it is without an actual path description, which you could get the length from directly. [ Scribe Assist by Gregory Williams ] ←
15:22:03 <AndyS> PROPOSED: time constraints on the WG mean we will not support path length in this cycle.
PROPOSED: time constraints on the WG mean we will not support path length in this cycle. ←
15:22:17 <MattPerry> +1 for that
Matthew Perry: +1 for that ←
15:22:20 <pgearon> +1
Paula Gearon: +1 ←
15:22:20 <AndyS> PROPOSED: time constraints on the WG mean we will not support path length in this working group
PROPOSED: time constraints on the WG mean we will not support path length in this working group ←
15:23:19 <pgearon> AndyS: only way to consider this would be if someone showed up with a concrete proposal on how this is to be done
Andy Seaborne: only way to consider this would be if someone showed up with a concrete proposal on how this is to be done [ Scribe Assist by Paula Gearon ] ←
15:23:56 <kasei> well, or it works if we have path lengths :)
Gregory Williams: well, or it works if we have path lengths :) ←
15:24:27 <pgearon> AndyS: new issue - results ordered by list
Andy Seaborne: new issue - results ordered by list [ Scribe Assist by Paula Gearon ] ←
15:25:13 <pgearon> AndyS: ordering is a difficult issue since it won't be preserved through the rest of the query execution
Andy Seaborne: ordering is a difficult issue since it won't be preserved through the rest of the query execution [ Scribe Assist by Paula Gearon ] ←
15:25:39 <pgearon> AndyS: knows that some people have been relying on the fact that lists are returned in order in his implementation, but they've been lucky so far
Andy Seaborne: knows that some people have been relying on the fact that lists are returned in order in his implementation, but they've been lucky so far [ Scribe Assist by Paula Gearon ] ←
15:26:12 <pgearon> pgearon: to preserve ordering we need some kind of "list" object in results
Paula Gearon: to preserve ordering we need some kind of "list" object in results [ Scribe Assist by Paula Gearon ] ←
15:26:27 <AndyS> PROPOSED: WG will not consider ordering nor preserving ordering or results from property paths
PROPOSED: WG will not consider ofdering nof preserving ofdering of results from property paths ←
15:26:46 <kasei> s/or/of/ ?
15:27:10 <kasei> +1
Gregory Williams: +1 ←
15:27:14 <AndyS> +1
Andy Seaborne: +1 ←
15:27:18 <MattPerry> +1
Matthew Perry: +1 ←
15:27:21 <pgearon> AndyS: for more complicated expressions it gets too hard to ensure that ordering is preserved
Andy Seaborne: for more complicated expressions it gets too hard to ensure that ordering is preserved [ Scribe Assist by Paula Gearon ] ←
15:27:23 <pgearon> +!
Paula Gearon: +! ←
15:27:26 <pgearon> +1
Paula Gearon: +1 ←
15:29:39 <AndyS> ?x :p^:q ?y
Andy Seaborne: ?x :p^:q ?y ←
15:29:47 <AndyS> ?x :p/^:q ?y
Andy Seaborne: ?x :p/^:q ?y ←
15:29:53 <kasei> no. prefer unary /^
Gregory Williams: no. prefer unary /^ ←
15:30:04 <MattPerry> +1 for unary
Matthew Perry: +1 for unary ←
15:30:07 <pgearon> AndyS: is anyone keen to have a binary hat as opposed to unary (examples above)
Andy Seaborne: is anyone keen to have a binary hat as opposed to unary (examples above) [ Scribe Assist by Paula Gearon ] ←
15:30:26 <OlivierCorby> +1 for unary
Olivier Corby: +1 for unary ←
15:30:32 <pgearon> +1 for unary
Paula Gearon: +1 for unary ←
15:30:49 <AndyS> PROPOSED: Only unary ^, no binary ^
PROPOSED: Only unary ^, no binary ^ ←
15:30:58 <kasei> +1
Gregory Williams: +1 ←
15:31:01 <MattPerry> +1
Matthew Perry: +1 ←
15:31:05 <pgearon> +1
Paula Gearon: +1 ←
15:31:21 <OlivierCorby> +1
Olivier Corby: +1 ←
15:31:28 <AndyS> ?x ^:q ?y
Andy Seaborne: ?x ^:q ?y ←
15:31:47 <AndyS> x :p/^:q ?y
Andy Seaborne: x :p/^:q ?y ←
15:32:16 <AndyS> ?x :p^:q ?y
Andy Seaborne: ?x :p^:q ?y ←
15:33:43 <AndyS> Doc says :: elt1 ^ elt2 Shorthand for elt1 / ^elt2, that is elt1 followed by the inverse of elt2.
Andy Seaborne: Doc says :: elt1 ^ elt2 Shorthand for elt1 / ^elt2, that is elt1 followed by the inverse of elt2. ←
15:34:32 <OlivierCorby> does ^ apply to property only or also to expression
Olivier Corby: does ^ apply to property only or also to expression ←
15:35:35 <pgearon> pgearon: since ^ is just a convenient shorthand for /^ then I would like the option of dropping the /
Paula Gearon: since ^ is just a convenient shorthand for /^ then I would like the option of dropping the / [ Scribe Assist by Paula Gearon ] ←
15:36:40 <AndyS> ^uri
Andy Seaborne: ^uri ←
15:36:53 <AndyS> Maybe only allow ^uri, not ^expression
Andy Seaborne: Maybe only allow ^uri, not ^expression ←
15:37:20 <kasei> I'd prefer the ^uri form only, but haven't thought out the implications.
Gregory Williams: I'd prefer the ^uri form only, but haven't thought out the implications. ←
15:37:23 <MattPerry> +1 for only ^uri
Matthew Perry: +1 for only ^uri ←
15:37:30 <AndyS> ?x ^expr ?y == ?y expr ?x
Andy Seaborne: ?x ^expr ?y == ?y expr ?x ←
15:37:40 <pgearon> I'd like ^?var
Paula Gearon: I'd like ^?var ←
15:38:09 <kasei> except the ^ doesn't have to be the outtermost operator
Gregory Williams: except the ^ doesn't have to be the outtermost operator ←
15:40:16 <pgearon> AndyS: thinks that it's OK, since once you get to the ^ part then you just have to change the direction around at that point
Andy Seaborne: thinks that it's OK, since once you get to the ^ part then you just have to change the direction around at that point [ Scribe Assist by Paula Gearon ] ←
15:40:41 <MattPerry> ^(p1/p2/p3) == (p3/p2/p1) ?
Matthew Perry: ^(p1/p2/p3) == (p3/p2/p1) ? ←
15:41:17 <kasei> right, so that's not just switching the endpoint nodes. that's flipping the insides of the expression.
Gregory Williams: right, so that's not just switching the endpoint nodes. that's flipping the insides of the expression. ←
15:42:08 <AndyS> ?x ^(p1/p2/p3) ?y :: ?y p1/p2/p3 ?x :: ?x ^p3/^p2/^p1 ?y
Andy Seaborne: ?x ^(p1/p2/p3) ?y :: ?y p1/p2/p3 ?x :: ?x ^p3/^p2/^p1 ?y ←
15:44:04 <pgearon> AndyS: all 3 of these should be equivalent
Andy Seaborne: all 3 of these should be equivalent [ Scribe Assist by Paula Gearon ] ←
15:47:31 <pgearon> AndyS: new issue: relationship with inference
Andy Seaborne: new issue: relationship with inference [ Scribe Assist by Paula Gearon ] ←
15:47:57 <pgearon> AndyS: can get nasty with more than one part of the system trying to do transitivity
Andy Seaborne: can get nasty with more than one part of the system trying to do transitivity [ Scribe Assist by Paula Gearon ] ←
15:48:00 <kasei> I don't understand the issue.
Gregory Williams: I don't understand the issue. ←
15:48:41 <bglimm> Zakim, passcode?
Birte Glimm: Zakim, passcode? ←
15:48:41 <Zakim> the conference code is 772775 (tel:+1.617.761.6200 tel:+33.4.89.06.34.99 tel:+44.117.370.6152), bglimm
Zakim IRC Bot: the conference code is 772775 (tel:+1.617.761.6200 tel:+33.4.89.06.34.99 tel:+44.117.370.6152), bglimm ←
15:49:08 <kasei> is the issue cardinality?
Gregory Williams: is the issue cardinality? ←
15:49:43 <AndyS> Oops:: bglimm, we don't know how to fix it.
Scribe problem: the name 'Oops' does not match any of the 63 active names. Either change the name used, or request the list of names be altered.Active names: Ahmed Ezzat Alexandre Passant Andrea Westerinen Andrei Lopatenko Andy Seaborne Axel Polleres Bijan Parsia Birte Glimm Bryan Thompson Chimezie Ogbuji Cui Tao Daniel Schutzer Dave Beckett David Charboneau David Newman Davide Palmisano Dhanapalan Kulandai Vadivel Dirk Colaert Dirk-Willem van Gulik Edward Thomas Elias Torres Enrico Franconi Eric Prud'hommeaux Frank Careccia Fred Zemke Gregory Williams Hiroyuki Sato Ivan Mikhailov Ivan Herman Jacek Kopecký Jari Vänttinen Jean-François Baget Jeen Broekstra Jeff Pollock John Clark Jos De Roo Kendall Clark Kevin Wilkinson Lee Feigenbaum Luke Wilson-Mawer Matthew Perry Michael Smith Michele Minno Nicholas Humfrey Nophadol Jekjantuk Olivier Corby Orri Erling Paula Gearon Prateek Jain Rachel Yager Roland Schwaenzl Sandro Hawke Sergio Tessaris Simon Johnston Souripriya Das Steve Harris Sven Groppe Timo Westkämper Tommi Koivula Yoshio Fukushige Zakim IRC Bot Trackbot IRC Bot RRSAgent IRC Bot
Unknown Oops: : bglimm, we don't know how to fix it. [ Scribe Assist by Andy Seaborne ] ←
15:49:52 <kasei> Zakim thinks our call ended 50 minutes ago...
Gregory Williams: Zakim thinks our call ended 50 minutes ago... ←
15:50:03 <AndyS> and we are about to be evicted anyway I guess
Andy Seaborne: and we are about to be evicted anyway I guess ←
15:50:38 <AndyS> We will take the entailment interaction to the list for ENT+PP discussion
Andy Seaborne: We will take the entailment interaction to the list for ENT+PP discussion ←
15:50:44 <bglimm> ok
Birte Glimm: ok ←
15:51:09 <bglimm> I can try and ask Zakim for a room?
Birte Glimm: I can try and ask Zakim for a room? ←
15:51:24 <bglimm> Zakim, room for 10?
Birte Glimm: Zakim, room for 10? ←
15:51:26 <Zakim> ok, bglimm; conference Team_(sparql)15:51Z scheduled with code 772775 (SPARQL) for 60 minutes until 1651Z
Zakim IRC Bot: ok, bglimm; conference Team_(sparql)15:51Z scheduled with code 772775 (SPARQL) for 60 minutes until 1651Z ←
15:52:32 <bglimm> Hm, doesn't work, I'll follow the list then
Birte Glimm: Hm, doesn't work, I'll follow the list then ←
15:53:47 <kasei> is the doc even defined with vars right now?
Gregory Williams: is the doc even defined with vars right now? ←
15:54:54 <AndyS> not currently
Andy Seaborne: not currently ←
15:55:54 <AndyS> ADJOURNED
Andy Seaborne: ADJOURNED ←
15:56:05 <Zakim> -kasei
Zakim IRC Bot: -kasei ←
15:56:09 <Zakim> -MattPerry
Zakim IRC Bot: -MattPerry ←
15:56:10 <pgearon> talk to you all Tuesday
Paula Gearon: talk to you all Tuesday ←
15:56:11 <Zakim> -AndyS
Zakim IRC Bot: -AndyS ←
15:56:13 <Zakim> -OlivierCorby
Zakim IRC Bot: -OlivierCorby ←
15:56:17 <Zakim> -pgearon
Zakim IRC Bot: -pgearon ←
15:56:19 <Zakim> Team_(sparql)13:55Z has ended
Zakim IRC Bot: Team_(sparql)13:55Z has ended ←
15:56:21 <Zakim> Attendees were Lee_Feigenbaum, kasei, AndyS, pgearon, MattPerry, OlivierCorby
Zakim IRC Bot: Attendees were Lee_Feigenbaum, kasei, AndyS, pgearon, MattPerry, OlivierCorby ←
16:16:39 <AndyS> rrsagent, make minutes public
(No events recorded for 20 minutes)
Andy Seaborne: rrsagent, make minutes public ←
16:16:39 <RRSAgent> I'm logging. I don't understand 'make minutes public', AndyS. Try /msg RRSAgent help
RRSAgent IRC Bot: I'm logging. I don't understand 'make minutes public', AndyS. Try /msg RRSAgent help ←
16:17:33 <AndyS> OK - which bot makes the IRC log public?
Andy Seaborne: OK - which bot makes the IRC log public? ←
16:45:39 <AndyS> Ah - already public. Done.
(No events recorded for 28 minutes)
Andy Seaborne: Ah - already public. Done. ←
Formatted by CommonScribe