14:00:00 <RRSAgent> logging to http://www.w3.org/2010/06/15-sparql-irc
RRSAgent IRC Bot: logging to http://www.w3.org/2010/06/15-sparql-irc ←
14:00:01 <Zakim> +kasei
Zakim IRC Bot: +kasei ←
14:00:02 <trackbot> RRSAgent, make logs world
Trackbot IRC Bot: RRSAgent, make logs world ←
14:00:04 <trackbot> Zakim, this will be 77277
Trackbot IRC Bot: Zakim, this will be 77277 ←
14:00:04 <Zakim> ok, trackbot; I see SW_(SPARQL)10:00AM scheduled to start now
Zakim IRC Bot: ok, trackbot; I see SW_(SPARQL)10:00AM scheduled to start now ←
14:00:05 <trackbot> Meeting: SPARQL Working Group Teleconference
14:00:05 <trackbot> Date: 15 June 2010
14:00:05 <bglimm> rrsagent, make logs world
Birte Glimm: rrsagent, make logs world ←
14:00:05 <RRSAgent> I'm logging. I don't understand 's make logs world', bglimm. Try /msg RRSAgent help
RRSAgent IRC Bot: I'm logging. I don't understand 's make logs world', bglimm. Try /msg RRSAgent help ←
14:00:13 <kasei> Zakim, mute me
Gregory Williams: Zakim, mute me ←
14:00:13 <Zakim> sorry, kasei, I don't know what conference this is
Zakim IRC Bot: sorry, kasei, I don't know what conference this is ←
14:00:13 <bglimm> rrsagent, set logs world
Birte Glimm: rrsagent, set logs world ←
14:00:15 <LeeF> zakim, this is SPARQL
Lee Feigenbaum: zakim, this is SPARQL ←
14:00:15 <Zakim> ok, LeeF; that matches SW_(SPARQL)10:00AM
Zakim IRC Bot: ok, LeeF; that matches SW_(SPARQL)10:00AM ←
14:00:21 <kasei> Zakim, mute me
Gregory Williams: Zakim, mute me ←
14:00:21 <Zakim> kasei should now be muted
Zakim IRC Bot: kasei should now be muted ←
14:00:36 <Zakim> +[IPcaller]
Zakim IRC Bot: +[IPcaller] ←
14:00:43 <bglimm> Scribe: bglimm
(Scribe set to Birte Glimm)
14:00:46 <Zakim> -MattPerry
Zakim IRC Bot: -MattPerry ←
14:00:47 <AndyS> zakim, IPCaller is me
Andy Seaborne: zakim, IPCaller is me ←
14:00:47 <Zakim> +AndyS; got it
Zakim IRC Bot: +AndyS; got it ←
14:00:53 <bglimm> Zakim, who is here?
Zakim, who is here? ←
14:00:53 <Zakim> On the phone I see +86528aaaa, kasei (muted), AndyS
Zakim IRC Bot: On the phone I see +86528aaaa, kasei (muted), AndyS ←
14:00:54 <Zakim> On IRC I see SteveH__, RRSAgent, AlexPassant, MattPerry, Zakim, bglimm, OlivierCorby, LeeF, iv_an_ru, SteveH, AndyS, karl, pgearon, kasei, sandro, trackbot
Zakim IRC Bot: On IRC I see SteveH__, RRSAgent, AlexPassant, MattPerry, Zakim, bglimm, OlivierCorby, LeeF, iv_an_ru, SteveH, AndyS, karl, pgearon, kasei, sandro, trackbot ←
14:00:59 <Zakim> + +1.617.245.aabb
Zakim IRC Bot: + +1.617.245.aabb ←
14:01:03 <LeeF> zakim, aabb is me
Lee Feigenbaum: zakim, aabb is me ←
14:01:03 <Zakim> +LeeF; got it
Zakim IRC Bot: +LeeF; got it ←
14:01:05 <bglimm> Zakim, +86528aaaa is me
Zakim, +86528aaaa is me ←
14:01:05 <Zakim> +bglimm; got it
Zakim IRC Bot: +bglimm; got it ←
14:01:16 <bglimm> scribe: bglimm
14:01:18 <Zakim> +MattPerry
Zakim IRC Bot: +MattPerry ←
14:01:24 <bglimm> ScribeNick: bglimm
14:02:08 <AndyS> Advanced regrets for 29/June. Will (still) be returning from the US.
Andy Seaborne: Advanced regrets for 29/June. Will (still) be returning from the US. ←
14:02:45 <Zakim> -LeeF
Zakim IRC Bot: -LeeF ←
14:02:47 <Zakim> +[Garlik]
Zakim IRC Bot: +[Garlik] ←
14:02:56 <SteveH> Zakim, [Garlik] is temporarily me
Steve Harris: Zakim, [Garlik] is temporarily me ←
14:02:56 <Zakim> +SteveH; got it
Zakim IRC Bot: +SteveH; got it ←
14:03:31 <Zakim> +Souri
Zakim IRC Bot: +Souri ←
14:03:33 <Zakim> +Lee_Feigenbaum
Zakim IRC Bot: +Lee_Feigenbaum ←
14:03:45 <LeeF> zakim, who's on the phone?
Lee Feigenbaum: zakim, who's on the phone? ←
14:03:45 <Zakim> On the phone I see bglimm, kasei (muted), AndyS, MattPerry, SteveH, Souri, Lee_Feigenbaum
Zakim IRC Bot: On the phone I see bglimm, kasei (muted), AndyS, MattPerry, SteveH, Souri, Lee_Feigenbaum ←
14:04:05 <LeeF> Regrets: Axel, pgearon, Sandro, IvanH
14:04:13 <bglimm> Regrets: Axel, Paul, Ivan, Sandro
14:04:22 <LeeF> Agenda: http://www.w3.org/2009/sparql/wiki/Agenda-2010-06-15
14:04:34 <LeeF> last week's minutes: http://www.w3.org/2009/sparql/meeting/2010-06-08
Lee Feigenbaum: last week's minutes: http://www.w3.org/2009/sparql/meeting/2010-06-08 ←
14:04:55 <Zakim> +??P27
Zakim IRC Bot: +??P27 ←
14:05:02 <AlexPassant> Zakim: ??p27 is me
14:05:10 <AlexPassant> Zakim, ??p27 is me
Alexandre Passant: Zakim, ??p27 is me ←
14:05:10 <Zakim> +AlexPassant; got it
Zakim IRC Bot: +AlexPassant; got it ←
14:05:25 <bglimm> Zakim, who is on the call?
Zakim, who is on the call? ←
14:05:25 <Zakim> On the phone I see bglimm, kasei (muted), AndyS, MattPerry, SteveH, Souri, Lee_Feigenbaum, AlexPassant
Zakim IRC Bot: On the phone I see bglimm, kasei (muted), AndyS, MattPerry, SteveH, Souri, Lee_Feigenbaum, AlexPassant ←
14:05:27 <OlivierCorby> tel server does not recognize when I deal sparql code
Olivier Corby: tel server does not recognize when I deal sparql code ←
14:06:12 <SteveH> OlivierCorby, disconnect and try again
Steve Harris: OlivierCorby, disconnect and try again ←
14:06:24 <LeeF> RESOLVED: Approve minutes at http://www.w3.org/2009/sparql/meeting/2010-06-08
RESOLVED: Approve minutes at http://www.w3.org/2009/sparql/meeting/2010-06-08 ←
14:06:57 <LeeF> Next meeting: 2010-06-29 @ 15:00 UK / 10:00 EDT
Lee Feigenbaum: Next meeting: 2010-06-29 @ 15:00 UK / 10:00 EDT ←
14:06:58 <NickH> I keep getting disconnected from the UK number
Nicholas Humfrey: I keep getting disconnected from the UK number ←
14:07:02 <bglimm> Lee: Andy has already send regrets from 29 July
Lee Feigenbaum: Andy has already send regrets from 29 July ←
14:07:17 <LeeF> SteveH strongly at risk for 6/29
Lee Feigenbaum: SteveH strongly at risk for 6/29 ←
14:07:21 <bglimm> SteveH: I am at risk, unlikely to make it actually
Steve Harris: I am at risk, unlikely to make it actually ←
14:07:35 <LeeF> NickH, apparently zakim is having troubles - solution is to either keep trying or to try the US number if you can
Lee Feigenbaum: NickH, apparently zakim is having troubles - solution is to either keep trying or to try the US number if you can ←
14:08:00 <bglimm> LeeF: new comment about the HTTP protocol
Lee Feigenbaum: new comment about the HTTP protocol ←
14:08:01 <Zakim> +??P21
Zakim IRC Bot: +??P21 ←
14:08:13 <bglimm> ... Chime can say something about that
... Chime can say something about that ←
14:08:14 <NickH> Zakim, ??21 is me
Nicholas Humfrey: Zakim, ??21 is me ←
14:08:14 <Zakim> sorry, NickH, I do not recognize a party named '??21'
Zakim IRC Bot: sorry, NickH, I do not recognize a party named '??21' ←
14:08:19 <bglimm> ... nothing new from RIF
... nothing new from RIF ←
14:08:20 <NickH> Zakim, ??P21 is me
Nicholas Humfrey: Zakim, ??P21 is me ←
14:08:20 <Zakim> +NickH; got it
Zakim IRC Bot: +NickH; got it ←
14:08:38 <bglimm> ... RDF2RDF will have a F2F in CA and has published their use cases
... RDB2RDF will have a F2F in CA and has published their use cases ←
14:08:47 <Zakim> +OlivierCorby
Zakim IRC Bot: +OlivierCorby ←
14:08:54 <bglimm> s/RDF2RDF/RDB2RDF/
14:09:23 <bglimm> ... W3C might set up a WG for governments to handle linked data
... W3C might set up a WG for governments to handle linked data ←
14:09:55 <LeeF> Dedicated teleconference on test cases: June 30th, 15:00 BST (10:00 EDT)
Lee Feigenbaum: Dedicated teleconference on test cases: June 30th, 15:00 BST (10:00 EDT) ←
14:09:57 <bglimm> ... time for test cases call is Wed Jun 30, 3pm UK time, 10am US Eastern
... time for test cases call is Wed Jun 30, 3pm UK time, 10am US Eastern ←
14:10:13 <bglimm> ... some test cases in emails
... some test cases in emails ←
14:10:28 <bglimm> ... make sure we have a place to put these
... make sure we have a place to put these ←
14:10:36 <LeeF> topic: SemTech
14:10:55 <bglimm> ... SemTec plans: we have a SPARQL 1.1 panel at Wed 2pm local time
... SemTec plans: we have a SPARQL 1.1 panel at Wed 2pm local time ←
14:11:03 <bglimm> ... same as the one at ISWC
... same as the one at ISWC ←
14:12:06 <bglimm> ... Is there interest in meeting informally outside of the panel?
... Is there interest in meeting informally outside of the panel? ←
14:12:18 <AndyS> Be good to informally meet up
Andy Seaborne: Be good to informally meet up ←
14:12:29 <bglimm> I won't be there
I won't be there ←
14:12:57 <bglimm> topic: Function Library
14:13:15 <bglimm> LeeF: Axel is fleshing out the design on a wiki page
Lee Feigenbaum: Axel is fleshing out the design on a wiki page ←
14:13:18 <LeeF> topic: zero-length paths
14:13:31 <bglimm> .... 0-length path semantics is stilll undefined
.... 0-length path semantics is stilll undefined ←
14:13:50 <bglimm> ... everything in the world, everything in the graph
... everything in the world, everything in the graph ←
14:14:14 <LeeF> See Andy's suggestion at http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-dawg/2010AprJun/0360.html
Lee Feigenbaum: See Andy's suggestion at http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-dawg/2010AprJun/0360.html ←
14:14:49 <bglimm> ... AndyS suggested compromise that 0-length matches any subject and object node in the DS and constant subj./obj. IRIs in the triple pattern
... AndyS suggested compromise that 0-length matches any subject and object node in the DS and constant subj./obj. IRIs in the triple pattern ←
14:15:01 <SteveH> q+
Steve Harris: q+ ←
14:15:05 <LeeF> ack SteveH
Lee Feigenbaum: ack SteveH ←
14:15:26 <bglimm> SteveH: I might miss something, but if you have:
Steve Harris: I might miss something, but if you have: ←
14:15:58 <bglimm> ?x :p{0,1} ?y, I would expect that to match only triples with that
?x :p{0,1} ?y, I would expect that to match only triples with that ←
14:15:59 <SteveH> ?x :p{0,1} ?y
Steve Harris: ?x :p{0,1} ?y ←
14:16:01 <bglimm> predicate
predicate ←
14:16:23 <LeeF> ?x :p{0} ?y
Lee Feigenbaum: ?x :p{0} ?y ←
14:16:28 <bglimm> LeeF: Lets consider first ?x p{0} ?y
Lee Feigenbaum: Lets consider first ?x p{0} ?y ←
14:16:45 <kasei> or bnodes
Gregory Williams: or bnodes ←
14:16:52 <Souri> So are we saying every property is reflexive?
Souripriya Das: So are we saying every property is reflexive? ←
14:17:00 <bglimm> ... gives all pairs of (iri, iri) for IRIs that occur in the graph as sub. or obj
... gives all pairs of (iri, iri) for IRIs that occur in the graph as sub. or obj ←
14:17:02 <SteveH> ?x :p _:foo
Steve Harris: ?x :p _:foo ←
14:17:13 <bglimm> I don't think
I don't think ←
14:18:04 <bglimm> Do you mean ?x :p{0} _:foo?
Do you mean ?x :p{0} _:foo? ←
14:18:09 <SteveH> <x> :p <y> . <y> :p <z> . <z> :p <a>
Steve Harris: <x> :p <y> . <y> :p <z> . <z> :p <a> ←
14:18:12 <Zakim> -AlexPassant
Zakim IRC Bot: -AlexPassant ←
14:18:27 <SteveH> <d> :q <e> /
Steve Harris: <d> :q <e> / ←
14:18:39 <SteveH> ?x :p* ?y
Steve Harris: ?x :p* ?y ←
14:18:56 <SteveH> <x> :p* ?y
Steve Harris: <x> :p* ?y ←
14:19:08 <bglimm> That just gives <x> I guess
That just gives <x> I guess ←
14:19:35 <SteveH> <x> :q <e>
Steve Harris: <x> :q <e> ←
14:19:37 <Zakim> +[IPcaller]
Zakim IRC Bot: +[IPcaller] ←
14:19:51 <AlexPassant> Zakim, ??ipcaller is me
Alexandre Passant: Zakim, ??ipcaller is me ←
14:19:51 <Zakim> sorry, AlexPassant, I do not recognize a party named '??ipcaller'
Zakim IRC Bot: sorry, AlexPassant, I do not recognize a party named '??ipcaller' ←
14:20:05 <AlexPassant> Zakim, ??[IPcaller] is me
Alexandre Passant: Zakim, ??[IPcaller] is me ←
14:20:05 <Zakim> sorry, AlexPassant, I do not recognize a party named '??[IPcaller]'
Zakim IRC Bot: sorry, AlexPassant, I do not recognize a party named '??[IPcaller]' ←
14:20:22 <bglimm> LeeF: we will have some more test cases for this, to illustrate what are expected results
Lee Feigenbaum: we will have some more test cases for this, to illustrate what are expected results ←
14:20:37 <LeeF> PROPOSED: Zero-length paths are defined to match all subjects and objects in the graph plus any IRI literal that is the subject or object of the triple pattern.
PROPOSED: Zero-length paths are defined to match all subjects and objects in the graph plus any IRI literal that is the subject or object of the triple pattern. ←
14:20:49 <AlexPassant> Zakim, ??IPcaller is me
Alexandre Passant: Zakim, ??IPcaller is me ←
14:20:49 <Zakim> sorry, AlexPassant, I do not recognize a party named '??IPcaller'
Zakim IRC Bot: sorry, AlexPassant, I do not recognize a party named '??IPcaller' ←
14:20:49 <bglimm> Zakim, ??ipcaller is AlexPassant
Zakim, ??ipcaller is AlexPassant ←
14:20:50 <Zakim> sorry, bglimm, I do not recognize a party named '??ipcaller'
Zakim IRC Bot: sorry, bglimm, I do not recognize a party named '??ipcaller' ←
14:22:17 <bglimm> We could just have + and no * and number must be greater than 0 in path length restrictions...
We could just have + and no * and number must be greater than 0 in path length restrictions... ←
14:22:43 <LeeF> Tentative consensus on the fact that zero-length paths are defined to match all subjects and objects in the graph plus any IRI literal that is the subject or object of the triple pattern.
Lee Feigenbaum: Tentative consensus on the fact that zero-length paths are defined to match all subjects and objects in the graph plus any IRI literal that is the subject or object of the triple pattern. ←
14:22:52 <LeeF> Encourage further discussion & test cases and will solicit external feedbcak
Lee Feigenbaum: Encourage further discussion & test cases and will solicit external feedbcak ←
14:23:27 <bglimm> topic: SPARQL UPDATE and service keyword
14:23:43 <bglimm> LeeF: Steve did send an email regarding this
Lee Feigenbaum: Steve did send an email regarding this ←
14:23:44 <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 ←
14:24:58 <bglimm> LeeF: Do we have to define atomicity or any other issues we have to define?
Lee Feigenbaum: Do we have to define atomicity or any other issues we have to define? ←
14:25:25 <bglimm> SteveH: We could say that we do not define atomicity.
Steve Harris: We could say that we do not define atomicity. ←
14:25:37 <bglimm> LeeF: What do implementations do?
Lee Feigenbaum: What do implementations do? ←
14:26:13 <bglimm> AndyS: depends a bit on the implementation, depends on the underlying datasource
Andy Seaborne: depends a bit on the implementation, depends on the underlying datasource ←
14:26:25 <bglimm> ... whether it supports transactions
... whether it supports transactions ←
14:26:34 <bglimm> ... in one case you would deadlock
... in one case you would deadlock ←
14:26:51 <bglimm> ... it would attemot to get a write lock on something that is already locked
... it would attemot to get a write lock on something that is already locked ←
14:27:03 <bglimm> ... there is no lock coordination
... there is no lock coordination ←
14:27:30 <bglimm> SteveH: Our implementation would also do that.
Steve Harris: Our implementation would also do that. ←
14:27:52 <SteveH> actually, it wouldn't, but it did in the past
Steve Harris: actually, it wouldn't, but it did in the past ←
14:28:09 <bglimm> Leef: Should we say that implementors should care about how they handle concurrency?
Lee Feigenbaum: Should we say that implementors should care about how they handle concurrency? ←
14:29:02 <bglimm> SteveH: A user might not know that two endpoints are actually the same endpoint
Steve Harris: A user might not know that two endpoints are actually the same endpoint ←
14:29:18 <bglimm> LeeF: Not clear what we can do to prevent this
Lee Feigenbaum: Not clear what we can do to prevent this ←
14:29:53 <bglimm> .... we say that multiple operations should be atomic, but we cannot really specify it more
.... we say that multiple operations should be atomic, but we cannot really specify it more ←
14:30:43 <bglimm> LeeF: At one point we said that update queries just use SPARQL 1.0 queries, but I think we changed that to SPARQL 1.1 at some point
Lee Feigenbaum: At one point we said that update queries just use SPARQL 1.0 queries, but I think we changed that to SPARQL 1.1 at some point ←
14:31:08 <bglimm> AndyS: You could do the same as service does in the example with load
Andy Seaborne: You could do the same as service does in the example with load ←
14:31:37 <bglimm> SteveH: It is worth a note in the security section because it can be part of a DoS attack
Steve Harris: It is worth a note in the security section because it can be part of a DoS attack ←
14:31:46 <LeeF> Advice to editor: consider a note in the security section about the interplay of SERVICE & LOAD against the endpoint handling an Update request
Lee Feigenbaum: Advice to editor: consider a note in the security section about the interplay of SERVICE & LOAD against the endpoint handling an Update request ←
14:33:17 <bglimm> LeeF: We need to do a review of the open issues
Lee Feigenbaum: We need to do a review of the open issues ←
14:33:31 <bglimm> ... understand the most important open issues for the docuemmnts
... understand the most important open issues for the documents ←
14:33:47 <bglimm> s/docuemmnts/documents/
14:34:08 <bglimm> .... Axel and I need to write an overview document about the different parts of the spec
.... Axel and I need to write an overview document about the different parts of the spec ←
14:34:26 <bglimm> Topic: Aggregates
14:34:48 <bglimm> LeeF: AndyS and SteveH tried to highlight the most important issues here
Lee Feigenbaum: AndyS and SteveH tried to highlight the most important issues here ←
14:35:09 <bglimm> ... Andy asked what does SELECT * mean in conjunction with GROUP BY clause
... Andy asked what does SELECT * mean in conjunction with GROUP BY clause ←
14:35:29 <bglimm> ... SELECT * could be an error if the query mentions variables not in the group by
... SELECT * could be an error if the query mentions variables not in the group by ←
14:35:42 <SteveH> q+
Steve Harris: q+ ←
14:35:42 <bglimm> ... we could also only collect vars in the group by clause
... we could also only collect vars in the group by clause ←
14:35:47 <LeeF> ack SteveH
Lee Feigenbaum: ack SteveH ←
14:35:54 <bglimm> I prefer option 1
I prefer option 1 ←
14:36:02 <LeeF> Example SELECT * { ... ?x ... ; ... ?y ... } GROUP BY ?x
Lee Feigenbaum: Example SELECT * { ... ?x ... ; ... ?y ... } GROUP BY ?x ←
14:36:18 <LeeF> is that (1) an error (projecting ?y which is not in GROUP BY) or (2) a valid query that projects just ?x ?
Lee Feigenbaum: is that (1) an error (projecting ?y which is not in GROUP BY) or (2) a valid query that projects just ?x ? ←
14:36:31 <SteveH> marginal preference for (2)
Steve Harris: marginal preference for (2) ←
14:36:36 <SteveH> but very marginal
Steve Harris: but very marginal ←
14:36:45 <bglimm> 2 would project ut ?y before aggregating
2 would project out ?y before aggregating ←
14:36:51 <bglimm> s/ut/out/
14:36:57 <MattPerry> I would say this is an error
Matthew Perry: I would say this is an error ←
14:37:00 <Souri> in SQL it will be an error
Souripriya Das: in SQL it will be an error ←
14:37:13 <SteveH> hm, maybe I'm changing my mind
Steve Harris: hm, maybe I'm changing my mind ←
14:37:13 <bglimm> I prefer to have it like SQL with error
I prefer to have it like SQL with error ←
14:38:08 <Souri> In Oracle, "select * from scott.emp group by ename;" returns "ORA-00979: not a GROUP BY expression"
Souripriya Das: In Oracle, "select * from scott.emp group by ename;" returns "ORA-00979: not a GROUP BY expression" ←
14:39:26 <AndyS> pref option 2
Andy Seaborne: pref option 2 ←
14:39:32 <bglimm> LeeF: In IRC, I see strong support for 1
Lee Feigenbaum: In IRC, I see strong support for 1 ←
14:39:43 <kasei> I prefer 2 slightly, though it's a pretty strange query...
Gregory Williams: I prefer 2 slightly, though it's a pretty strange query... ←
14:40:10 <SteveH> marginal preference for 2
Steve Harris: marginal preference for 2 ←
14:40:15 <SteveH> er, 1
Steve Harris: er, 1 ←
14:40:24 <LeeF> straw poll - #1 is error and #2 is projects just the group by key variables
Lee Feigenbaum: straw poll - #1 is error and #2 is projects just the group by key variables ←
14:40:30 <bglimm> 1
1 ←
14:40:33 <Souri> prefer 1
Souripriya Das: prefer 1 ←
14:40:36 <kasei> 2
14:40:37 <AndyS> #2
Andy Seaborne: #2 ←
14:40:38 <MattPerry> 1
Matthew Perry: 1 ←
14:40:38 <OlivierCorby> 2
Olivier Corby: 2 ←
14:40:39 <SteveH> prefer 1
Steve Harris: prefer 1 ←
14:40:48 <LeeF> 0
Lee Feigenbaum: 0 ←
14:41:43 <bglimm> 4 to 3 for option 1
4 to 3 for option 1 ←
14:41:54 <AndyS> 4 for #1 , 3 for #2, and 1 for #0
Andy Seaborne: 4 for #1 , 3 for #2, and 1 for #0 ←
14:42:14 <bglimm> LeeF: No convincing decision, we should bring it to the attention of the group and get more feedback
Lee Feigenbaum: No convincing decision, we should bring it to the attention of the group and get more feedback ←
14:42:17 <kasei> ha. I prefer #2, but support #1 by default because it just explodes when I try executing the query.
Gregory Williams: ha. I prefer #2, but support #1 by default because it just explodes when I try executing the query. ←
14:42:21 <bglimm> ... create more test cases
... create more test cases ←
14:42:39 <LeeF> ACTION: Lee to craft a test case for SELECT * ... GROUP BY and solicit implementor, WG, and community feedback
ACTION: Lee to craft a test case for SELECT * ... GROUP BY and solicit implementor, WG, and community feedback ←
14:42:39 <trackbot> Created ACTION-257 - Craft a test case for SELECT * ... GROUP BY and solicit implementor, WG, and community feedback [on Lee Feigenbaum - due 2010-06-22].
Trackbot IRC Bot: Created ACTION-257 - Craft a test case for SELECT * ... GROUP BY and solicit implementor, WG, and community feedback [on Lee Feigenbaum - due 2010-06-22]. ←
14:43:02 <bglimm> So did you change your vote kasei?
So did you change your vote kasei? ←
14:43:27 <kasei> bglimm, no.
Gregory Williams: bglimm, no. ←
14:43:28 <bglimm> LeeF: There was discussion about GROUP BY without having an aggregate
Lee Feigenbaum: There was discussion about GROUP BY without having an aggregate ←
14:43:41 <kasei> just means I need to do more impl. work.
Gregory Williams: just means I need to do more impl. work. ←
14:43:46 <bglimm> ah
ah ←
14:44:21 <bglimm> LeeF: wrong reference
Lee Feigenbaum: wrong reference ←
14:45:09 <bglimm> ... I waned to go back to what AndyS called null aggregation
... I waned to go back to what AndyS called null aggregation ←
14:45:19 <LeeF> which leads me to a fairly natural interpretation of
Lee Feigenbaum: which leads me to a fairly natural interpretation of ←
14:45:19 <LeeF> SELECT ?s ?p
Lee Feigenbaum: SELECT ?s ?p ←
14:45:19 <LeeF> {
Lee Feigenbaum: { ←
14:45:19 <LeeF> ?s ?p ?p
Lee Feigenbaum: ?s ?p ?p ←
14:45:19 <LeeF> } GROUP BY ?s ?p
Lee Feigenbaum: } GROUP BY ?s ?p ←
14:45:20 <bglimm> AndyS: I'll type a small example
Andy Seaborne: I'll type a small example ←
14:45:20 <LeeF> as "null aggregation"
Lee Feigenbaum: as "null aggregation" ←
14:45:21 <AndyS> Example SELECT ?s { ?s ?p ?o } GROUP BY ?s
Andy Seaborne: Example SELECT ?s { ?s ?p ?o } GROUP BY ?s ←
14:46:01 <bglimm> but is has GROUP BY for all projected vars, so should be fine
but is has GROUP BY for all projected vars, so should be fine ←
14:46:52 <bglimm> AndyS: It could be aggregation that just does nothing
Andy Seaborne: It could be aggregation that just does nothing ←
14:47:04 <bglimm> SteveH: It could be an imolicit SAMPLE
Steve Harris: It could be an implicit SAMPLE ←
14:47:15 <bglimm> s/imolicit/implicit/
14:47:32 <bglimm> AndyS: but here the var is not necessarily in the key
Andy Seaborne: but here the var is not necessarily in the key ←
14:47:40 <bglimm> SteveH: That's not a problem
Steve Harris: That's not a problem ←
14:47:55 <SteveH> SELECT SAMPLE(?s) { ?s ?p ?o } GROUP BY ?s
Steve Harris: SELECT SAMPLE(?s) { ?s ?p ?o } GROUP BY ?s ←
14:48:22 <AndyS> SELECT (?o+1 AS ?e) { ?s ?p ?o } GROUP BY ?o+1
Andy Seaborne: SELECT (?o+1 AS ?e) { ?s ?p ?o } GROUP BY ?o+1 ←
14:48:41 <bglimm> That's scary
That's scary ←
14:48:46 <AndyS> SELECT (?o+1 AS ?e) { ?s ?p ?o } GROUP BY ?o
Andy Seaborne: SELECT (?o+1 AS ?e) { ?s ?p ?o } GROUP BY ?o ←
14:49:13 <bglimm> SteveH: That should be legal
Steve Harris: That should be legal ←
14:49:38 <bglimm> LeeF: Must the expressions be functional?
Lee Feigenbaum: Must the expressions be functional? ←
14:49:46 <LeeF> SELECT (rand(?o) AS ?e) { ?s ?p ?o } GROUP BY ?o
Lee Feigenbaum: SELECT (rand(?o) AS ?e) { ?s ?p ?o } GROUP BY ?o ←
14:49:59 <kasei> which of those first two is meant to be legal?
Gregory Williams: which of those first two is meant to be legal? ←
14:50:09 <AndyS> SELECT (?o AS ?e) { ?s ?p ?o } GROUP BY ?o
Andy Seaborne: SELECT (?o AS ?e) { ?s ?p ?o } GROUP BY ?o ←
14:50:15 <bglimm> AndyS: Going back to the use of sample, that must be carefully worded
Andy Seaborne: Going back to the use of sample, that must be carefully worded ←
14:50:45 <bglimm> SteveH: The renaming happens later in the algebra, so that is not a problem
Steve Harris: The renaming happens later in the algebra, so that is not a problem ←
14:51:09 <SteveH> SELECT (SAMPLE(?o)+1 AS ?e) { ?s ?p ?o } GROUP BY ?o
Steve Harris: SELECT (SAMPLE(?o)+1 AS ?e) { ?s ?p ?o } GROUP BY ?o ←
14:51:17 <bglimm> AndyS: If we have the ?o+1, we need to have ?o available later on
Andy Seaborne: If we have the ?o+1, we need to have ?o available later on ←
14:53:00 <bglimm> LeeF: I am interested in understanding which queries are legal and which ones are not in an email, so that we agree
Lee Feigenbaum: I am interested in understanding which queries are legal and which ones are not in an email, so that we agree ←
14:53:40 <bglimm> SteveH: I so far based the definitions on the F2F decisions, algebra got complicated though
Steve Harris: I so far based the definitions on the F2F decisions, algebra got complicated though ←
14:53:42 <AndyS> If we do go for "SELECT *" withGROUP BY is illegal, I'm presuming this *not* a grammar issue
Andy Seaborne: If we do go for "SELECT *" withGROUP BY is illegal, I'm presuming this *not* a grammar issue ←
14:53:49 <bglimm> ... we can revise if too complicated
... we can revise if too complicated ←
14:53:55 <LeeF> ACTION: Steve to summarize which queries are legal and not in terms of expressions in GROUP BY and expressions in the SELECT clause that deal with group by keys and with aggregators
ACTION: Steve to summarize which queries are legal and not in terms of expressions in GROUP BY and expressions in the SELECT clause that deal with group by keys and with aggregators ←
14:53:55 <trackbot> Created ACTION-258 - Summarize which queries are legal and not in terms of expressions in GROUP BY and expressions in the SELECT clause that deal with group by keys and with aggregators [on Steve Harris - due 2010-06-22].
Trackbot IRC Bot: Created ACTION-258 - Summarize which queries are legal and not in terms of expressions in GROUP BY and expressions in the SELECT clause that deal with group by keys and with aggregators [on Steve Harris - due 2010-06-22]. ←
14:53:57 <SteveH> AndyS, doesn't seem like one
Steve Harris: AndyS, doesn't seem like one ←
14:54:02 <LeeF> q?
Lee Feigenbaum: q? ←
14:54:37 <bglimm> LeeF: Last issue: AndyS asked about composite keys give an implicit sorting
Lee Feigenbaum: Last issue: AndyS asked about composite keys give an implicit sorting ←
14:55:01 <bglimm> ... Is that something that is or is not in the current draft?
... Is that something that is or is not in the current draft? ←
14:55:28 <AndyS> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-dawg/2010AprJun/0348.html
Andy Seaborne: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-dawg/2010AprJun/0348.html ←
14:55:40 <NickH> yup
Nicholas Humfrey: yup ←
14:55:41 <AlexPassant> yes
Alexandre Passant: yes ←
14:56:13 <bglimm> SteveH: I am not sure I understand the issue
Steve Harris: I am not sure I understand the issue ←
14:56:23 <SteveH> ...question
Steve Harris: ...question ←
14:57:18 <LeeF> 3 Y
Lee Feigenbaum: 3 Y ←
14:57:19 <bglimm> Sou you wouldn't get 3 Y, 1 A, 3 X, ...
Sou you wouldn't get 3 Y, 1 A, 3 X, ... ←
14:57:21 <LeeF> 1A
Lee Feigenbaum: 1A ←
14:57:37 <MattPerry> Wouldn't you add an order by for that guarantee
Matthew Perry: Wouldn't you add an order by for that guarantee ←
14:57:37 <Souri> no
Souripriya Das: no ←
14:57:39 <bglimm> SteveH: The current algebra does nt guarantee anything
Steve Harris: The current algebra does nt guarantee anything ←
14:57:50 <bglimm> ... you have to put an order by clause
... you have to put an order by clause ←
14:58:15 <bglimm> AndyS: My implementation would not give a guarantee, uses hash sets
Andy Seaborne: My implementation would not give a guarantee, uses hash sets ←
14:58:27 <Souri> I would be in favor of not guranteeing an order
Souripriya Das: I would be in favor of not guaranteeing an order ←
14:58:42 <bglimm> SteveH: It seems too much to require that since we have an explicit order by clause that can be used if required
Steve Harris: It seems too much to require that since we have an explicit order by clause that can be used if required ←
14:58:56 <Souri> s/guranteeing/guaranteeing /
14:59:03 <bglimm> LeeF: Seems easy then, no guarantee is given on the ordering
Lee Feigenbaum: Seems easy then, no guarantee is given on the ordering ←
14:59:15 <bglimm> LeeF: Any other business?
Lee Feigenbaum: Any other business? ←
14:59:29 <bglimm> AndyS: The syntax issue for Union and MINUS
Andy Seaborne: The syntax issue for Union and MINUS ←
14:59:51 <bglimm> ... for Union, we coud not require left hand side brackets
... for Union, we could not require left hand side brackets ←
15:00:13 <Souri> s/coud/could/
15:00:14 <bglimm> SteveH: I thought we wanted it to be more like optional
Steve Harris: I thought we wanted it to be more like optional ←
15:00:44 <kasei> I thought so as well, and would prefer it to work syntactically like optional.
Gregory Williams: I thought so as well, and would prefer it to work syntactically like optional. ←
15:00:55 <bglimm> LeeF: I think we agreed we shouldn't require braces on the left-hand side part, but no firm decision
Lee Feigenbaum: I think we agreed we shouldn't require braces on the left-hand side part, but no firm decision ←
15:01:18 <bglimm> .... if you are interested in these syntax issues, take a look at Andy's mail and get involved
.... if you are interested in these syntax issues, take a look at Andy's mail and get involved ←
15:01:38 <AndyS> see you in SF next week
Andy Seaborne: see you in SF next week ←
15:01:38 <bglimm> .... see you at SemTec or until 29th.
.... see you at SemTec or until 29th. ←
15:01:41 <SteveH> bye all
Steve Harris: bye all ←
15:01:42 <bglimm> adjourned
adjourned ←
Formatted by CommonScribe