09:57:00 <LeeF> Chair: LeeF
09:57:00 <LeeF> Regrets: Axel, Alex, Souri, SteveH
09:57:00 <sandro> scribe: sandro
(Scribe set to Sandro Hawke)
09:57:00 <sandro> rrsagent, make log public
rrsagent, make log public ←
09:57:00 <sandro> meeting: SPARQL Working Group
09:57:00 <Zakim> SW_(SPARQL)10:00AM has now started
Zakim IRC Bot: SW_(SPARQL)10:00AM has now started ←
09:57:00 <Zakim> +??P4
Zakim IRC Bot: +??P4 ←
09:58:00 <Zakim> +??P5
Zakim IRC Bot: +??P5 ←
09:58:00 <NicholasHumfrey> zakim, ??P4 is me
Nicholas Humfrey: zakim, ??P4 is me ←
09:58:00 <Zakim> +NicholasHumfrey; got it
Zakim IRC Bot: +NicholasHumfrey; got it ←
09:58:00 <Zakim> +Lee_Feigenbaum
Zakim IRC Bot: +Lee_Feigenbaum ←
09:58:00 <AndyS> zakim, ??P5 is me
Andy Seaborne: zakim, ??P5 is me ←
09:58:00 <Zakim> +AndyS; got it
Zakim IRC Bot: +AndyS; got it ←
09:58:00 <Zakim> +OlivierCorby
Zakim IRC Bot: +OlivierCorby ←
09:58:00 <Zakim> +Sandro
Zakim IRC Bot: +Sandro ←
09:59:00 <LeeF> zakim, who's on the phone?
Lee Feigenbaum: zakim, who's on the phone? ←
09:59:00 <Zakim> On the phone I see NicholasHumfrey, AndyS, Lee_Feigenbaum, OlivierCorby, Sandro
Zakim IRC Bot: On the phone I see NicholasHumfrey, AndyS, Lee_Feigenbaum, OlivierCorby, Sandro ←
09:59:00 <Zakim> +kasei
Zakim IRC Bot: +kasei ←
10:00:00 <ivan> zakim, dial ivan-voip
Ivan Herman: zakim, dial ivan-voip ←
10:00:00 <Zakim> ok, ivan; the call is being made
Zakim IRC Bot: ok, ivan; the call is being made ←
10:00:00 <Zakim> +Ivan
Zakim IRC Bot: +Ivan ←
10:00:00 <Zakim> +MattPerry
Zakim IRC Bot: +MattPerry ←
10:00:00 <Zakim> -MattPerry
Zakim IRC Bot: -MattPerry ←
10:00:00 <chimezie> Zakim, passcode?
Chimezie Ogbuji: Zakim, passcode? ←
10:00:00 <Zakim> the conference code is 77277 (tel:+1.617.761.6200 tel:+33.4.89.06.34.99 tel:+44.117.370.6152), chimezie
Zakim IRC Bot: the conference code is 77277 (tel:+1.617.761.6200 tel:+33.4.89.06.34.99 tel:+44.117.370.6152), chimezie ←
10:01:00 <Zakim> +MattPerry
Zakim IRC Bot: +MattPerry ←
10:01:00 <Zakim> +Chimezie_Ogbuji
Zakim IRC Bot: +Chimezie_Ogbuji ←
10:01:00 <Zakim> +pgearon
Zakim IRC Bot: +pgearon ←
10:02:00 <chimezie> Zakim, mute me
Chimezie Ogbuji: Zakim, mute me ←
10:02:00 <Zakim> Chimezie_Ogbuji should now be muted
Zakim IRC Bot: Chimezie_Ogbuji should now be muted ←
10:02:00 <LeeF> zakim, who's on the phone?
Lee Feigenbaum: zakim, who's on the phone? ←
10:02:00 <Zakim> On the phone I see NicholasHumfrey, AndyS, Lee_Feigenbaum, OlivierCorby, Sandro, kasei (muted), Ivan, MattPerry, pgearon, Chimezie_Ogbuji (muted)
Zakim IRC Bot: On the phone I see NicholasHumfrey, AndyS, Lee_Feigenbaum, OlivierCorby, Sandro, kasei (muted), Ivan, MattPerry, pgearon, Chimezie_Ogbuji (muted) ←
10:02:00 <sandro> zakim, list attendees
zakim, list attendees ←
10:02:00 <Zakim> As of this point the attendees have been NicholasHumfrey, Lee_Feigenbaum, AndyS, OlivierCorby, Sandro, kasei, Ivan, MattPerry, Chimezie_Ogbuji, pgearon
Zakim IRC Bot: As of this point the attendees have been NicholasHumfrey, Lee_Feigenbaum, AndyS, OlivierCorby, Sandro, kasei, Ivan, MattPerry, Chimezie_Ogbuji, pgearon ←
10:03:00 <sandro> lee: not a big agenda today, but let's try to make progress on all our issues
Lee Feigenbaum: not a big agenda today, but let's try to make progress on all our issues ←
10:03:00 <Zakim> +dcharbon2
Zakim IRC Bot: +dcharbon2 ←
10:03:00 <LeeF> Agenda: http://www.w3.org/2009/sparql/wiki/Agenda-2010-06-01
10:03:00 <sandro> lee: we should have time for extra matters, if they come up.
Lee Feigenbaum: we should have time for extra matters, if they come up. ←
10:03:00 <LeeF> PROPOSED: Approve minutes at http://www.w3.org/2009/sparql/meeting/2010-05-25
PROPOSED: Approve minutes at http://www.w3.org/2009/sparql/meeting/2010-05-25 ←
10:04:00 <LeeF> RESOLVED: Approve minutes at http://www.w3.org/2009/sparql/meeting/2010-05-25
RESOLVED: Approve minutes at http://www.w3.org/2009/sparql/meeting/2010-05-25 ←
10:04:00 <LeeF> Next meeting: 2010-06-08 @ 15:00 UK / 10:00 EST (scribe: Steve Harris)
Lee Feigenbaum: Next meeting: 2010-06-08 @ 15:00 UK / 10:00 EST (scribe: Steve Harris) ←
10:04:00 <chimezie> i will be out next tuesday
Chimezie Ogbuji: i will be out next tuesday ←
10:05:00 <Zakim> +??P25
Zakim IRC Bot: +??P25 ←
10:06:00 <sandro> lee: I'm hoping to advertise this next round a lot better. we're just a round or two from last call.
Lee Feigenbaum: I'm hoping to advertise this next round a lot better. we're just a round or two from last call. ←
10:06:00 <AndyS> +1 to more feedback - last call is *last* call :-)
Andy Seaborne: +1 to more feedback - last call is *last* call :-) ←
10:07:00 <sandro> sandro: if someone is only going to review it once, then just last call
Sandro Hawke: if someone is only going to review it once, then just last call ←
10:07:00 <Zakim> + +1.540.412.aaaa
Zakim IRC Bot: + +1.540.412.aaaa ←
10:08:00 <sandro> lee: I don't want a repeat of DAWG's three last calls!
Lee Feigenbaum: I don't want a repeat of DAWG's three last calls! ←
10:08:00 <Zakim> -pgearon
Zakim IRC Bot: -pgearon ←
10:08:00 <pgearon> Zakim, aaaa is me
Paula Gearon: Zakim, aaaa is me ←
10:08:00 <Zakim> +pgearon; got it
Zakim IRC Bot: +pgearon; got it ←
10:08:00 <sandro> sandro: Okay, then in the publicity now, highlight whatever is likely to be controvercial.
Sandro Hawke: Okay, then in the publicity now, highlight whatever is likely to be controvercial. ←
10:08:00 <sandro> lee: yeah, I was going to contact the editors to talk about that.
Lee Feigenbaum: yeah, I was going to contact the editors to talk about that. ←
10:09:00 <LeeF> sandro: AC reps encouraged to give feedback on RIF PR if interested
Sandro Hawke: AC reps encouraged to give feedback on RIF PR if interested [ Scribe Assist by Lee Feigenbaum ] ←
10:11:00 <AndyS> q+
Andy Seaborne: q+ ←
10:12:00 <LeeF> ack AndyS
Lee Feigenbaum: ack AndyS ←
10:13:00 <sandro> sandro: I think linked data has turned the corner and is rolling downhill in the govt space now
Sandro Hawke: I think linked data has turned the corner and is rolling downhill in the govt space now ←
10:13:00 <NicholasHumfrey> I will pass things on to other SPARQL users in the BBC
Nicholas Humfrey: I will pass things on to other SPARQL users in the BBC ←
10:13:00 <sandro> lee: Any particular groups we should contact there?
Lee Feigenbaum: Any particular groups we should contact there? ←
10:13:00 <kasei> I can send the draft pointers to the data.gov group for comments.
Gregory Williams: I can send the draft pointers to the data.gov group for comments. ←
10:13:00 <sandro> sandro: I can't think of any right now. I suggest a blog post and careful use of twitter to get the word out,
Sandro Hawke: I can't think of any right now. I suggest a blog post and careful use of twitter to get the word out, ←
10:14:00 <sandro> (rdb2rdf stuff missed)
(rdb2rdf stuff missed) ←
10:15:00 <AndyS> AndyS: maybe data.gov.uk (Government Linked Data Kernel Project)
Andy Seaborne: maybe data.gov.uk (Government Linked Data Kernel Project) [ Scribe Assist by Andy Seaborne ] ←
10:15:00 <sandro> Lee: Dedicate call on something planned, did scheduling poll.
Lee Feigenbaum: Dedicate call on something planned, did scheduling poll. ←
10:15:00 <LeeF> Monday, June 7th
Lee Feigenbaum: Monday, June 7th ←
10:15:00 <LeeF> at 10am ET / 3pm UK time
Lee Feigenbaum: at 10am ET / 3pm UK time ←
10:15:00 <sandro> topic: # HTTP RDF Update dedicate TC scheduling
10:15:00 <sandro> lee: all interested parties be there.
Lee Feigenbaum: all interested parties be there. ←
10:16:00 <AndyS> Is this HTTP update or all update?
Andy Seaborne: Is this HTTP update or all update? ←
10:16:00 <sandro> lee: This is specifically HTTP update, not "all update".
Lee Feigenbaum: This is specifically HTTP update, not "all update". ←
10:17:00 <sandro> topic: Property paths dedicated TC
10:17:00 <sandro> lee: very successful. thanks Andy for the suggestion of these dedicated TCs.
Lee Feigenbaum: very successful. thanks Andy for the suggestion of these dedicated TCs. ←
10:17:00 <sandro> lee: we got consensus around all the issues
Lee Feigenbaum: we got consensus around all the issues ←
10:17:00 <LeeF> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-dawg/2010AprJun/0285.html
Lee Feigenbaum: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-dawg/2010AprJun/0285.html ←
10:18:00 <sandro> lee: I'd like to run through these proposals and get WG approval now.
Lee Feigenbaum: I'd like to run through these proposals and get WG approval now. ←
10:18:00 <Zakim> +bglimm
Zakim IRC Bot: +bglimm ←
10:18:00 <LeeF> PROPOSED: The ^ inverse path operator is strictly a unary operator.
PROPOSED: The ^ inverse path operator is strictly a unary operator. ←
10:19:00 <LeeF> . /^
Lee Feigenbaum: . /^ ←
10:20:00 <AndyS> q+
Andy Seaborne: q+ ←
10:20:00 <LeeF> ack AndyS
Lee Feigenbaum: ack AndyS ←
10:20:00 <sandro> sandro: Could this change be adopted back into n3 ?
Sandro Hawke: Could this change be adopted back into n3 ? ←
10:20:00 <LeeF> AndyS: N3 doesn't use forward slash (/) anyway for paths, it uses !
Andy Seaborne: N3 doesn't use forward slash (/) anyway for paths, it uses ! [ Scribe Assist by Lee Feigenbaum ] ←
10:20:00 <LeeF> ... so the differences in syntax are already there
Lee Feigenbaum: ... so the differences in syntax are already there ←
10:21:00 <LeeF> ... N3 uses ^ both as unary reverse operator and as a combining operator
Lee Feigenbaum: ... N3 uses ^ both as unary reverse operator and as a combining operator ←
10:21:00 <sandro> andy: n3 uses ! instead of / so there are differences there anyway. n3 uses ^ in a different way, both in paths and in an binary sense, where we're not using it.
Andy Seaborne: n3 uses ! instead of / so there are differences there anyway. n3 uses ^ in a different way, both in paths and in an binary sense, where we're not using it. ←
10:21:00 <LeeF> ... SPARQL WG prefers single combining syntax (/) and operator (^) for reversing
Lee Feigenbaum: ... SPARQL WG prefers single combining syntax (/) and operator (^) for reversing ←
10:22:00 <kasei> +1
Gregory Williams: +1 ←
10:22:00 <bglimm> +1
Birte Glimm: +1 ←
10:22:00 <sandro> +0
+0 ←
10:22:00 <pgearon> abstain
Paula Gearon: abstain ←
10:22:00 <AndyS> +0
Andy Seaborne: +0 ←
10:22:00 <ivan> 0
Ivan Herman: 0 ←
10:22:00 <OlivierCorby> +1
Olivier Corby: +1 ←
10:22:00 <dcharbon2> 0
10:22:00 <MattPerry> +1
Matthew Perry: +1 ←
10:23:00 <sandro> lee: do we need more +1s than +0s?
Lee Feigenbaum: do we need more +1s than +0s? ←
10:23:00 <LeeF> RESOLVED: The ^ inverse path operator is strictly a unary operator, with sandro, AndyS, ivan, dcharbon2, pgearon abstaining
RESOLVED: The ^ inverse path operator is strictly a unary operator, with sandro, AndyS, ivan, dcharbon2, pgearon abstaining ←
10:23:00 <sandro> sandro: no, it's okay
Sandro Hawke: no, it's okay ←
10:23:00 <LeeF> PROPOSED: Property paths do not preserve the order of underlying graph structures (no change to spec).
PROPOSED: Property paths do not preserve the order of underlying graph structures (no change to spec). ←
10:24:00 <sandro> lee: To returns list items in order using property paths would require deep changes to the algebra, etc.
Lee Feigenbaum: To returns list items in order using property paths would require deep changes to the algebra, etc. ←
10:25:00 <sandro> ivan: I am disappointed that this is a problem that SPARQL 1.1 cannot solve.
Ivan Herman: I am disappointed that this is a problem that SPARQL 1.1 cannot solve. ←
10:25:00 <sandro> lee: We all wish we had a solution.
Lee Feigenbaum: We all wish we had a solution. ←
10:25:00 <AndyS> Needs more than SPARQL to solve!
Andy Seaborne: Needs more than SPARQL to solve! ←
10:26:00 <MattPerry> +1
Matthew Perry: +1 ←
10:26:00 <AndyS> +1
Andy Seaborne: +1 ←
10:26:00 <pgearon> +1
Paula Gearon: +1 ←
10:26:00 <bglimm> +1
Birte Glimm: +1 ←
10:26:00 <ivan> 0
Ivan Herman: 0 ←
10:26:00 <ivan> 0 :-(
Ivan Herman: 0 :-( ←
10:26:00 <sandro> +0 sounds okay, but I don't really understand the issues
+0 sounds okay, but I don't really understand the issues ←
10:26:00 <OlivierCorby> +1
Olivier Corby: +1 ←
10:26:00 <LeeF> RESOLVED: Property paths do not preserve the order of underlying graph structures (no change to spec), ivan, sandro abstaining
RESOLVED: Property paths do not preserve the order of underlying graph structures (no change to spec), ivan, sandro abstaining ←
10:27:00 <sandro> thanks, pgearon, but the real problem is that I don't have time to think about it.
thanks, pgearon, but the real problem is that I don't have time to think about it. ←
10:27:00 <LeeF> PROPOSED: Postpone (beyond this WG) any work on returning the length of a matched property path.
PROPOSED: Postpone (beyond this WG) any work on returning the length of a matched property path. ←
10:28:00 <sandro> +1
+1 ←
10:28:00 <bglimm> +1
Birte Glimm: +1 ←
10:28:00 <pgearon> +1
Paula Gearon: +1 ←
10:28:00 <AndyS> +1
Andy Seaborne: +1 ←
10:28:00 <MattPerry> +1
Matthew Perry: +1 ←
10:28:00 <LeeF> RESOLVED: Postpone (beyond this WG) any work on returning the length of a matched property path.
RESOLVED: Postpone (beyond this WG) any work on returning the length of a matched property path. ←
10:28:00 <OlivierCorby> +1
Olivier Corby: +1 ←
10:28:00 <LeeF> PROPOSED: The cardinality of solutions to fixed-length paths is the same as the cardinality of solutions to the path expanded into
PROPOSED: The cardinality of solutions to fixed-length paths is the same as the cardinality of solutions to the path expanded into ←
10:28:00 <LeeF> triple patterns (with all variables projected); the cardinality of solutions to variable-length paths is the cardinality of solutions
Lee Feigenbaum: triple patterns (with all variables projected); the cardinality of solutions to variable-length paths is the cardinality of solutions ←
10:28:00 <LeeF> via paths that do not repeat nodes; the cardinality of solutions to paths combining fixed and variable length (elt{n,} ) is a combination
Lee Feigenbaum: via paths that do not repeat nodes; the cardinality of solutions to paths combining fixed and variable length (elt{n,} ) is a combination ←
10:28:00 <LeeF> of the fixed definition plus the variable definition for paths longer than the fixed length.
Lee Feigenbaum: of the fixed definition plus the variable definition for paths longer than the fixed length. ←
10:30:00 <sandro> PROPOSED: Cardinality of solutions to property paths is as in http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-dawg/2010AprJun/0285
PROPOSED: Cardinality of solutions to property paths is as in http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-dawg/2010AprJun/0285 ←
10:30:00 <AndyS> And see also Birte's http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-dawg/2010AprJun/0293
Andy Seaborne: And see also Birte's http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-dawg/2010AprJun/0293 ←
10:31:00 <sandro> lee: Note this does not affect the answers you get, just the cardinality of the answers.
Lee Feigenbaum: Note this does not affect the answers you get, just the cardinality of the answers. ←
10:31:00 <LeeF> {n,}
Lee Feigenbaum: {n,} ←
10:32:00 <sandro> +1
+1 ←
10:32:00 <bglimm> So what is the cardinality of query with BGP a r+ ?x ? on graph: a r b. b r c . b r d. ? 2? because the path uses b twice, but it is still a different path for a to c and a to d.
Birte Glimm: So what is the cardinality of query with BGP a r+ ?x ? on graph: a r b. b r c . b r d. ? 2? because the path uses b twice, but it is still a different path for a to c and a to d. ←
10:32:00 <LeeF> PROPOSED: Cardinality of solutions to property paths is as in http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-dawg/2010AprJun/0285
PROPOSED: Cardinality of solutions to property paths is as in http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-dawg/2010AprJun/0285 ←
10:32:00 <bglimm> Zakim, unmute me
Birte Glimm: Zakim, unmute me ←
10:32:00 <Zakim> bglimm should no longer be muted
Zakim IRC Bot: bglimm should no longer be muted ←
10:34:00 <LeeF> b r b.
Lee Feigenbaum: b r b. ←
10:34:00 <sandro> lee: ?x bound to c and d, each soln has card 1.
Lee Feigenbaum: ?x bound to c and d, each soln has card 1. ←
10:34:00 <sandro> (really, lee, where are you goging? :-)
(really, lee, where are you goging? :-) ←
10:34:00 <sandro> chime: resonsible for detecting cycles and excluding paths that use them
Chimezie Ogbuji: resonsible for detecting cycles and excluding paths that use them ←
10:35:00 <sandro> lee: yes
Lee Feigenbaum: yes ←
10:35:00 <sandro> +1
+1 ←
10:36:00 <LeeF> PROPOSED: Cardinality of solutions to property paths is as in http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-dawg/2010AprJun/0285
PROPOSED: Cardinality of solutions to property paths is as in http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-dawg/2010AprJun/0285 ←
10:36:00 <sandro> lee: obviously if new information is unearthed in the future, we can revisit these decisions. But let's move forward now unless someone sees an actual problem.
Lee Feigenbaum: obviously if new information is unearthed in the future, we can revisit these decisions. But let's move forward now unless someone sees an actual problem. ←
10:36:00 <AndyS> +1
Andy Seaborne: +1 ←
10:36:00 <bglimm> +1
Birte Glimm: +1 ←
10:36:00 <OlivierCorby> +1
Olivier Corby: +1 ←
10:36:00 <dcharbon2> +1
David Charboneau: +1 ←
10:36:00 <MattPerry> +1
Matthew Perry: +1 ←
10:36:00 <pgearon> +1
Paula Gearon: +1 ←
10:36:00 <LeeF> RESOLVED: Cardinality of solutions to property paths is as in http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-dawg/2010AprJun/0285
RESOLVED: Cardinality of solutions to property paths is as in http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-dawg/2010AprJun/0285 ←
10:37:00 <sandro> (it seems to me that one needs to keep track of cycles anyway.)
(it seems to me that one needs to keep track of cycles anyway.) ←
10:38:00 <LeeF> PROPOSED: Property paths include an operator to negate paths consisting of URIs and reverse URIs only.
PROPOSED: Property paths include an operator to negate paths consisting of URIs and reverse URIs only. ←
10:38:00 <sandro> lee: I missed the discussion of this next one, about negating paths of URIs only -- no negation of +/*
Lee Feigenbaum: I missed the discussion of this next one, about negating paths of URIs only -- no negation of +/* ←
10:38:00 <AndyS> Yes - accurate
Andy Seaborne: Yes - accurate ←
10:39:00 <LeeF> PROPOSED: Property paths include an operator to negate paths consisting of URIs and reverse URIs only; more complex paths (such as those including * or +) cannot be negated
PROPOSED: Property paths include an operator to negate paths consisting of URIs and reverse URIs only; more complex paths (such as those including * or +) cannot be negated ←
10:39:00 <AndyS> Douglas Reid / BBN / http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-dawg-comments/2010Feb/0000.html
Andy Seaborne: Douglas Reid / BBN / http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-dawg-comments/2010Feb/0000.html ←
10:39:00 <sandro> +1
+1 ←
10:39:00 <AndyS> +1
Andy Seaborne: +1 ←
10:39:00 <MattPerry> +1
Matthew Perry: +1 ←
10:39:00 <OlivierCorby> +1
Olivier Corby: +1 ←
10:39:00 <ivan> +1
Ivan Herman: +1 ←
10:39:00 <bglimm> 0 (I am scared of path negation)
Birte Glimm: 0 (I am scared of path negation) ←
10:39:00 <dcharbon2> +1
David Charboneau: +1 ←
10:39:00 <pgearon> +1
Paula Gearon: +1 ←
10:39:00 <LeeF> RESOLVED: Property paths include an operator to negate paths consisting of URIs and reverse URIs only; more complex paths (such as those incliuding * or +) cannot be negated, bglimm abstaining
RESOLVED: Property paths include an operator to negate paths consisting of URIs and reverse URIs only; more complex paths (such as those incliuding * or +) cannot be negated, bglimm abstaining ←
10:40:00 <LeeF> ?s :p{0} ?o
Lee Feigenbaum: ?s :p{0} ?o ←
10:40:00 <sandro> lee: is this bound to every node in the data set? every node in the universe? nothing?
Lee Feigenbaum: is this bound to every node in the data set? every node in the universe? nothing? ←
10:41:00 <sandro> (I think: every node/pair in the dataset.)
(I think: every node/pair in the dataset.) ←
10:41:00 <LeeF> zakim, who's on the phone?
Lee Feigenbaum: zakim, who's on the phone? ←
10:41:00 <Zakim> On the phone I see NicholasHumfrey, AndyS, Lee_Feigenbaum, OlivierCorby, Sandro, kasei (muted), Ivan, MattPerry, Chimezie_Ogbuji, dcharbon2, ??P25, pgearon, bglimm (muted)
Zakim IRC Bot: On the phone I see NicholasHumfrey, AndyS, Lee_Feigenbaum, OlivierCorby, Sandro, kasei (muted), Ivan, MattPerry, Chimezie_Ogbuji, dcharbon2, ??P25, pgearon, bglimm (muted) ←
10:41:00 <sandro> lee: anything else on property paths? no....
Lee Feigenbaum: anything else on property paths? no.... ←
10:42:00 <bglimm> I would say that ?s :p{0} ?o is every pair of nodes in the graph
Birte Glimm: I would say that ?s :p{0} ?o is every pair of nodes in the graph ←
10:42:00 <sandro> lee: no point in talking about Steve's issue on the WHERE part of sparql update, with SERVICE, since Steve isn't here.
Lee Feigenbaum: no point in talking about Steve's issue on the WHERE part of sparql update, with SERVICE, since Steve isn't here. ←
10:43:00 <sandro> right, I think so too, bglimm
right, I think so too, bglimm ←
10:43:00 <LeeF> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-dawg/2010AprJun/0267.html
Lee Feigenbaum: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-dawg/2010AprJun/0267.html ←
10:43:00 <sandro> lee: anyone have any progress on Steve's query issue here?
Lee Feigenbaum: anyone have any progress on Steve's query issue here? ←
10:43:00 <sandro> topic: SPARQL Update and SERVICE (move this up)
10:44:00 <sandro> pgearon: I think it would be fine!
Paula Gearon: I think it would be fine! ←
10:44:00 <sandro> pgearon: Since they occur one after the other, it would see the deletion.
Paula Gearon: Since they occur one after the other, it would see the deletion. ←
10:44:00 <sandro> lee: please reply to Steve on the mailing list.
Lee Feigenbaum: please reply to Steve on the mailing list. ←
10:44:00 <sandro> topic: Open Issues
10:45:00 <sandro> http://www.w3.org/2009/sparql/track/issues/open
http://www.w3.org/2009/sparql/track/issues/open ←
10:45:00 <ivan> q+
Ivan Herman: q+ ←
10:45:00 <LeeF> ack ivan
Lee Feigenbaum: ack ivan ←
10:46:00 <bglimm> Zakim, unmute me
Birte Glimm: Zakim, unmute me ←
10:46:00 <Zakim> bglimm should no longer be muted
Zakim IRC Bot: bglimm should no longer be muted ←
10:46:00 <sandro> ivan: should we talk about which URIs to use, for the entailment regimes and for import
Ivan Herman: should we talk about which URIs to use, for the entailment regimes and for import ←
10:46:00 <bglimm> http://www.w3.org/ns/entailment/RDF is wrong for describing RDF entailment in SDs?
Birte Glimm: http://www.w3.org/ns/entailment/RDF is wrong for describing RDF entailment in SDs? ←
10:47:00 <bglimm> Zakim, unmute me
Birte Glimm: Zakim, unmute me ←
10:47:00 <Zakim> bglimm was not muted, bglimm
Zakim IRC Bot: bglimm was not muted, bglimm ←
10:47:00 <sandro> sandro: RIF will review the published version and give its feedback in general, and on the URIs in specific.
Sandro Hawke: RIF will review the published version and give its feedback in general, and on the URIs in specific. ←
10:48:00 <bglimm> The namespace and URI used for rif:imports is still under discussion within the group
Birte Glimm: The namespace and URI used for rif:imports is still under discussion within the group ←
10:48:00 <bglimm> Should that entailment URI be http://www.w3.org/ns/entailment/RIF instead, since the choice between Core, BLD, or PLD does not mean a difference in entailment semantics but rather a difference in syntactic subsets of RIF?
Birte Glimm: Should that entailment URI be http://www.w3.org/ns/entailment/RIF instead, since the choice between Core, BLD, or PLD does not mean a difference in entailment semantics but rather a difference in syntactic subsets of RIF? ←
10:48:00 <sandro> sandro: if the URIs are reasonable straw proposals, then leave them. if we know they're bad, then use example.org.
Sandro Hawke: if the URIs are reasonable straw proposals, then leave them. if we know they're bad, then use example.org. ←
10:48:00 <bglimm> These are the 2 ed notes we have for RIF
Birte Glimm: These are the 2 ed notes we have for RIF ←
10:49:00 <sandro> chime: we could use entailment/rif and change the note to clarify
Chimezie Ogbuji: we could use entailment/rif and change the note to clarify ←
10:49:00 <sandro> ivan: but for import we have nothing in mind.
Ivan Herman: but for import we have nothing in mind. ←
10:49:00 <sandro> ivan: Okay.
Ivan Herman: Okay. ←
10:51:00 <sandro> lee: so are we changing entailment regimes doc today, or not?
Lee Feigenbaum: so are we changing entailment regimes doc today, or not? ←
10:51:00 <sandro> chime: Yes, change from rdf-core (rif-core?) to rif
Chimezie Ogbuji: Yes, change from rdf-core (rif-core?) to rif ←
10:52:00 <bglimm> http://www.w3.org/ns/entailment/RDF-RIF-Core is the URI to describe the RIF regime in SDs
Birte Glimm: http://www.w3.org/ns/entailment/RDF-RIF-Core is the URI to describe the RIF regime in SDs ←
10:52:00 <bglimm> That I guess should be changed
Birte Glimm: That I guess should be changed ←
10:53:00 <bglimm> Zakim, mute me
Birte Glimm: Zakim, mute me ←
10:53:00 <Zakim> bglimm should now be muted
Zakim IRC Bot: bglimm should now be muted ←
10:53:00 <sandro> sandro: for the webmaster, it seems like we should prepare something like: sparql/round_nnn/WD-sparql-update-20100601/(all the files there)
Sandro Hawke: for the webmaster, it seems like we should prepare something like: sparql/round_nnn/WD-sparql-update-20100601/(all the files there) ←
10:53:00 <AndyS> Can I start editing rq25 again now?
Andy Seaborne: Can I start editing rq25 again now? ←
10:54:00 <AndyS> There is an HTML copy anyway.
Andy Seaborne: There is an HTML copy anyway. ←
10:54:00 <sandro> lee: Yes, you can start editing rq25 again.
Lee Feigenbaum: Yes, you can start editing rq25 again. ←
Formatted by CommonScribe