IRC log of dawg on 2004-09-17

Timestamps are in UTC.

08:51:01 [RRSAgent]
RRSAgent has joined #dawg
08:51:18 [kendallc]
i don't think so, re: news
08:51:23 [AndyS]
Map to optional : issue is that variables would get bound
08:52:52 [kendallc]
i'll point ericp to it when the disjunction discussion slows down
08:53:11 [AndyS]
Some cases (many?) can be done by value disjunction
08:54:04 [AndyS]
(example on screen)
08:54:46 [AndyS]
JF: Very difficult for implementations
08:54:54 [kendallc]
08:54:59 [AndyS]
(scribe agreeds - needs data flow analysis of query - not syntax)
08:55:36 [rob]
trickier example would be get people who are either of type "doggowner" or own a pet whose type is a dog
08:55:41 [ericP]
08:55:54 [AndyS]
ack, kendallc
08:55:55 [AlbertoR]
AlbertoR has joined #dawg
08:56:01 [DaveB]
let me paste the examples
08:56:08 [DaveB]
4. Want at least one of them with the constraint
08:56:08 [DaveB]
08:56:08 [DaveB]
OPTIONAL (?person rdf:type Engineer)
08:56:08 [DaveB]
OPTIONAL (?person rdf:type Manager)
08:56:09 [DaveB]
(?person ex:age ?age)
08:56:11 [DaveB]
08:56:13 [rob]
kendall: how much of opt difficulty is just
08:56:13 [DaveB]
?age >20
08:56:15 [JanneS]
JanneS has joined #dawg
08:56:17 [AndyS]
Kendall: Hard to implement?
08:56:18 [DaveB]
=> YES
08:56:22 [DaveB]
08:56:23 [DaveB]
5. Re-expression of 4 using value disjunction
08:56:25 [DaveB]
08:56:27 [DaveB]
(?person ex:age ?age)
08:56:29 [DaveB]
(?person rdf:type ?type)
08:56:31 [DaveB]
08:56:33 [DaveB]
(?type = Engineer OR ?type = Manager) AND
08:56:35 [DaveB]
?age > 20
08:56:39 [DaveB]
08:56:41 [DaveB]
08:57:32 [kendallc]
how much of the optimization worries are due to SteveH's sql-based implementation strategy. That is, I'm wondering how general they are.
08:57:34 [AndyS]
Steve: would simply expand all cases to one (large!) SQL query
08:57:45 [JFBaget]
JFBaget has joined #dawg
08:58:01 [DaveB]
steve worried about optimising
08:59:12 [rob]
eric: optimizations can hurt soundness and completeness\
08:59:22 [rob]
i.e. optimization can introduce bugs
08:59:23 [AndyS]
Jos: its a requirement (3.13)
08:59:37 [ericP]
ack Yoshio
08:59:37 [Zakim]
Yoshio, you wanted to ask what empty WHERE means
08:59:50 [kendallc]
zakim, q-
08:59:50 [Zakim]
I see no one on the speaker queue
08:59:50 [AndyS]
ack kendallc
08:59:51 [rob]
yoshio: what does empty where clause mean?
09:00:10 [AndyS]
DaveB: was a typo
09:00:19 [JFBaget]
zakim, q+
09:00:19 [Zakim]
I see JFBaget on the speaker queue
09:00:26 [rob]
yoshio: with optional at top and no other where terms..
09:00:29 [JosD]
q+ to point to requirement 3.13 RDF Graph Pattern MatchingDisjunction
09:01:22 [rob]
yoshio: select ?x where optional (?x, ?x ?x)
09:01:33 [rob]
anday: return one row one column
09:01:53 [rob]
andy: using construct instead of select in that query migght return an error
09:02:12 [ericP]
09:02:15 [rob]
steve: with construct, if x isn't bound result is empty doc
09:02:35 [ericP]
ack JFBaget
09:03:05 [ericP]
q+ ericP
09:03:15 [rob]
jf: implementation will have two components graph matching and then constraints.
09:03:20 [ericP]
09:03:38 [ericP]
q+ ericP to ask if optimization is a criteria for success
09:03:38 [rob]
jf: will bbe much more efficieent to be able to put disjunction in first step
09:03:51 [rob]
jf: we know algorithms tto do disjunction
09:04:07 [rob]
steve: y system doesn't separate those two steps as explicitly
09:04:37 [rob]
steve: simple constraints are used to prune graph matchin stage in my system
09:05:02 [ericP]
ack JosD
09:05:02 [Zakim]
JosD, you wanted to point to requirement 3.13 RDF Graph Pattern MatchingDisjunction
09:05:27 [rob]
(examples are being typed up ffor later review)
09:05:44 [rob]
jos: 3.13 requires disjunction
09:06:00 [rob]
steve: but optional might meet those needs
09:06:28 [rob]
3.13 was proposed and accepted during a face-to-face\
09:07:13 [rob]
steve: process error that it was accepted that way
09:07:15 [ericP]
09:09:03 [rob]
eric: let's get example where optional isn't good enough
09:09:09 [rob]
andy: and let's post it to the email list
09:11:08 [rob]
action: rob to do stuff
09:11:21 [rob]
steve to own disjunction issue
09:11:29 [ericP]
ack ericP
09:11:29 [Zakim]
ericP, you wanted to ask if optimization is a criteria for success
09:12:22 [rob]
eric: how do we balance expressiveness with implementation and optimization ease
09:12:48 [rob]
kendall: it should be some kind of concern
09:13:02 [ericP]
09:13:22 [kendallc]
if the optimization worries are generalizable, then yes, it's a real concern. but i don't know that and no one has claimed it.
09:13:41 [rob]
state of art is triple-based, not graph matchin based
09:14:59 [rob]
janne: in SQL, some queries just perfform poorly
09:15:09 [rob]
steve: in SQL you can tell which ones will perfform poorly
09:16:02 [rob]
straw poll: who wants to drop disjunction
09:16:11 [rob]
4 in favor (reluctat fifth
09:16:59 [rob]
three or four against
09:17:21 [DanC_lap]
DanC_lap has joined #dawg
09:17:40 [rob]
DanC has joined th meeting and is taking over as chair
09:19:01 [rob]
danc: let's update issues list at break
09:19:15 [rob]
danc: f2f meeting schedule
09:19:57 [rob]
danc: we ffinally know tech plenary date; let's meeet efore end of feb
09:20:13 [rob]
dan: booked to end of year
09:20:27 [rob]
steve: considered hosting ( inUK)
09:20:33 [ericP]
yoshio, should we drag everyone to japan?
09:20:39 [rob]
kendall: possibly in DC
09:20:47 [rob]
janne: finland, anyone?
09:20:47 [Yoshio]
in January?
09:21:25 [Yoshio]
If we plan to use Keio room, I think January is not a good month (entrance exam)
09:21:36 [ericP]
oo, good point
09:21:40 [rob]
It's everyody's favorite game, the Scheduling Game! Hooray!!!
09:25:41 [rob]
19-20 Jan looks liike a good tiime; kendall will consider DC
09:26:14 [rob]
action: kendall to consider DC
09:26:31 [rob]
action janne to consider hosting f2f\
09:26:39 [rob]
action: janne to considerhosting f2f
09:26:47 [rob]
action: steve to consider hosting f2f
09:27:02 [rob]
dan: moving on to telecon times
09:27:11 [rob]
dan: same time boston time?
09:27:17 [rob]
yoshio: NOOOOOOO!
09:27:49 [kendallc]
Janne: how about a meeting in Tampere? :>
09:27:54 [kendallc]
sounds insanely cool there
09:27:54 [rob]
(this is partly over daylight saings time change)
09:33:03 [JanneS]
Hmm, Tampere is 200kms (130miles) North from my home and office... could do, though, if you insist.
09:33:19 [kendallc]
09:34:04 [rob]
danc: agreed to meet 1430 utc
09:34:30 [rob]
kendall: dan is being mean to people not here
09:34:54 [kendallc]
it's just a meaningless point to make, give yr input if yr not gonna be here. it wouldn't make a bit of difference to the decision.
09:34:57 [rob]
resolved to meet 1430 utc, no abstaintions no objections
09:35:22 [rob]
no meeting 21st
09:35:27 [rob]
next meetingg 28th
09:35:50 [rob]
scribe for 28th sept: janne
09:36:07 [rob]
f2f proposals expected before that meeting
09:37:04 [rob]
This concluded this exciting edition of the Scheule Game! thanks forplaying
09:37:10 [rob]
09:37:17 [rob]
scribe affter reak: ericp
09:58:24 [ericP]
09:58:40 [ericP]
[BRQL grammar discussion]
09:59:16 [DaveB]
DARQ grammar discussion....
10:00:18 [ericP]
oh right, DARQ
10:01:57 [kendallc]
for example, the parents and instances of a class or the class tree.
10:03:53 [ericP]
Andy: issues around nesting...
10:04:29 [ericP]
... constraints can show up in lots of places
10:05:41 [ericP]
[Andy gives a tour of two syntax variants]
10:07:16 [ericP]
... are there other choices?
10:07:28 [ericP]
SteveH: not allow in-line constraints
10:07:28 [kendallc]
10:10:05 [ericP]
example for Andy:
10:10:07 [ericP]
SELECT ?mbox ?name ?name2
10:10:07 [ericP]
FROM <file:D.n3>
10:10:07 [ericP]
10:10:07 [ericP]
{ ?x foaf:mbox ?mbox .
10:10:09 [ericP]
?x foaf:number ?n . ?n < 30 .
10:10:12 [ericP]
OPTIONAL { ?x foaf:name ?name } .
10:10:14 [ericP]
OPTIONAL { ?x foaf:knows ?y . OPTIONAL { ?y foaf:name ?name2 } . }
10:10:17 [ericP]
10:12:19 [ericP]
SteveH asks for block-based OPTIONAL graphs
10:12:42 [ericP]
Andy: are you prepared to do data-flow analysis
10:12:51 [ericP]
SteveH: already do it for RDQL
10:14:53 [SteveH]
q+ to talk about trivalue logic
10:19:04 [ericP]
[DaveB proposes 4 syntax alternatives]
10:19:25 [ericP]
DaveB: let's stay close to RDQL 'cause people are using it now.
10:22:42 [ericP]
Andy: what RDQL query would *not* fit in [DaveB's forth proposal] ?
11:04:39 [ericP]
11:05:09 [ericP]
[Andy presents syn-prop.txt]
11:07:19 [ericP]
Andy asks about conjunctive constraints
11:07:40 [ericP]
SteveH has a prob with constraints applied to a block
11:09:29 [ericP]
... specifically, source applied to a multiple triples
11:10:04 [ericP]
prefix vs. using
11:10:24 [ericP]
Andy prefers prefix (before use) for single pass
11:10:36 [DaveB]
DaveB +1 to PREFISX
11:10:37 [ericP]
SteveH feels that it clutters the query.
11:10:49 [ericP]
eric{ +1 to PREFISX
11:12:17 [ericP]
SteveH withdraws objection to prefix
11:13:17 [ericP]
DanC: i'd like andyS to be less democratic
11:13:35 [ericP]
DaveB opposes nested optionals
11:13:49 [ericP]
... + SOURCE attached to triple
11:15:57 [ericP]
... can't see block boundries with the ANDs in the graph
11:17:01 [ericP]
EricP: what is your [DabveB
11:17:11 [ericP]
] objection to nested optionals
11:17:19 [ericP]
DaveB: doesn't seem required
11:17:29 [ericP]
Alberto: why not use quads
11:17:43 [ericP]
Andy: can make QL work but...
11:18:31 [ericP]
... What do you return when the triple comes from two models?
11:18:51 [ericP]
Alberto and SteveH return two solutions
11:23:23 [kendallc]
(s p o :prop value) -- colon doesn't work, but some other prefix might
11:23:33 [rob]
steve: use of 'as' as keyword
11:23:37 [kendallc]
(s p o prop=value) would, I guess
11:24:05 [rob]
andy: this sounds like starting over; making triples data objects in themodel
11:24:32 [rob]
dave: putting source riht next to the triple is the simplest solution
11:25:26 [rob]
staw poll: is it worth 'reinventing the universe' to come up with a robust way to handle 'source'?
11:25:41 [rob]
(consensus no, I think)
11:26:45 [rob]
andy: makes sense to be able to put 'and' blocks anywhere
11:28:12 [rob]
general agreement that ability to move any block anywhere in a where clause (becausee it's just a conjunction which is commutative)
11:28:17 [rob] good
11:28:40 [rob]
dan: is source on just one triple good enough?
11:29:04 [rob]
steve: you can just tack the same thing onto multiple triples, and you can do the more general thing
11:29:50 [rob]
andy: weird that optionals are square brackets and eveything else is keywords
11:30:25 [rob]
kendall: consistency good
11:31:22 [rob]
andy: nested optionals can always be "distributed" out to top level\
11:31:44 [rob]
eric: anyone other than steve object to nested optionals?
11:31:55 [rob]
weakly object: jos dirk
11:32:07 [rob]
strongly for nested optionals andy
11:32:14 [rob]
weakly for: ericp, yoshio
11:33:08 [rob]
andy: wwith just an optional keyword, you make nested optionals impossible
11:33:36 [DanC_lap]
Steve: ah... "nested optionals in the future" is a convincing argument.
11:33:36 [kendallc]
rob, yr scribing makes me sound like Semantic Caveman... "consistency good; rob bad!" :>
11:35:12 [rob]
eric: any optional-supporters not content with planning for future nested optional syntax, but not including nested optionals as a feature?
11:36:02 [rob]
(nobody shouts too loudly)
11:37:02 [rob]
(expanding sample syntax to a query with multiple optional blocks)
11:37:35 [rob]
eric: how about using variables in different optional blocks?
11:37:46 [rob]
steve: the constraints are complex...
11:38:41 [rob]
ericp: let's let the editor put this example together and email it
11:39:15 [rob]
Rob expressed objection to this syntax
11:39:29 [rob]
6 in favor of this syntax
11:39:46 [rob]
two are ambivalent (orr abstainging or something)
11:40:24 [rob]
note that this is just a straw poll
11:40:32 [rob]
lunch time!
11:42:54 [rob]
rob: languages that explicitly declare variables make variables in otpionaltype bocks simpler, because scopin is straightforward
11:45:03 [DanC_lap]
break for lunch.
12:23:33 [shellac]
shellac has joined #dawg
12:35:08 [Zakim]
Zakim has left #dawg
12:40:33 [rob]
rob has joined #dawg
12:45:09 [DanC_lap]
starting to boot up after lunch...
12:45:22 [DanC_lap]
excused: JosD, JanneS
12:45:53 [AndyS]
AndyS has joined #dawg
12:46:27 [Yoshio]
Yoshio has joined #dawg
12:49:01 [kendallc],,62356,00.html
12:49:03 [JanneS]
I'm excused.
13:04:19 [DaveB]
13:04:23 [DaveB]
publication schedule
13:04:44 [DaveB]
AndyS busy 20-24Sep
13:05:30 [DaveB]
avail 27Sep-1Oct
13:05:53 [DaveB]
DONM 28th Sep
13:06:41 [DaveB]
SteveH and DaveB offered reviews
13:06:47 [DaveB]
DanC will look for more later
13:07:16 [DaveB]
poss publication 35th Sept
13:07:18 [AlbertoR]
AlbertoR has joined #dawg
13:07:29 [DaveB]
also known as Oct5th
13:08:15 [DaveB]
DECISION to publish Oct5th based on reviews from 28thSep
13:08:29 [DanC_lap]
i.e. folks should expect a decision; we didn't just make one
13:09:22 [AndyS]
Editting finished by Oct 1
13:11:19 [DaveB]
discussion of the issues list
13:11:31 [DanC_lap]
ACTION DanC: talk with Kendall about issues list maintenance
13:12:14 [DaveB]
ACTION DanC: add a pointer to the issues list to the DAWG home page (if it isn't there)
13:12:34 [DaveB]
new name candidates
13:13:49 [DaveB]
added to the issues list item
13:14:02 [DaveB]
looking at
13:14:28 [DaveB]
13:17:29 [DanC_lap]
13:17:34 [DanC_lap]
"source of a triple" thread
13:18:14 [DaveB]
digression to xml format for results
13:20:16 [DaveB]
DaveB - xml result format, would take it and make skeletal doc, add schema
13:20:20 [DaveB]
maybe rename to match terms
13:20:26 [DaveB]
EricP - prefer tesrseer
13:20:28 [DaveB]
13:20:53 [DaveB]
SteveH - like tr and td and th idea
13:20:59 [DaveB]
DaveB - will think about that
13:21:26 [DaveB]
maybe put in a namespace
13:21:49 [DaveB]
DanC - give it a or namespace else say why not
13:21:56 [DaveB]
Alberto - +datatype & lang
13:22:16 [DaveB]
EricP - argument for namespace - may want to later on add extra annotations such as proof. compositiblity
13:23:49 [DaveB]
13:24:03 [DaveB]
DanC - protocol doc
13:24:17 [DaveB]
what would I put to say to a competent programmer to do this protocol
13:25:03 [DaveB]
DaveB - recipe style
13:25:35 [DaveB]
Kendall - joseki with some (not many) changes
13:25:35 [ericP]
13:25:35 [ericP]
13:25:35 [ericP]
<tr><td xml:lang="en">Bob</td><td resource="mailto:bob@toy.example"/></tr>
13:25:35 [ericP]
13:25:49 [AndyS]
13:25:58 [DaveB]
Kendall - identifying server query points and models
13:26:54 [Yoshio]
re: tr, th approach Mmm, I don't like it. those tags doesn't bear the meanings
13:26:54 [ericP]
13:26:59 [DaveB]
13:27:45 [DaveB]
looking at QUERY: HTTP GET
13:28:07 [DaveB]
the URI without the ?query_string gets the model in a syntax [rdf/xml?]
13:28:21 [DaveB]
Kendall - confused about that; sending query to a graph, plus also haveing FROM in the QL
13:28:52 [DaveB]
SteveH - similar thing to this, no model stuff
13:29:15 [DaveB]
AndyS - FROM is really for the local case
13:29:45 [DaveB]
Algae has from
13:30:41 [DaveB]
EricP - annotaa does the getting the model when there is no Q like Joseki
13:30:49 [DaveB]
AndyS - you can say you don't support that
13:31:23 [DaveB]
ref to Atom Protocol work
13:31:31 [DaveB]
take some of the good points from there
13:31:51 [DaveB]
atompub ietf wg
13:32:03 [kendallc]
13:32:59 [DaveB]
DanC initution is that the no-querystring result should be documentation (html)
13:33:05 [DaveB]
maybe machiner eadbale
13:33:49 [DanC_lap]
no, not html.
13:33:55 [DanC_lap]
a service description.
13:34:28 [DanC_lap]
e.g. { <> a :Service; :expertIn :Biology, :Finance; :authoritativeOn :Kingdom, :Phylum, :stockPrice }.
13:34:45 [kendallc]
13:37:03 [kendallc]
13:37:58 [DaveB]
draft of autodiscovery for finding a feed from a w web page
13:38:21 [kendallc]
Atom API Quick Reference
13:38:22 [kendallc]
13:38:26 [kendallc]
that's pretty good, actually
13:39:23 [DaveB]
kendall was going to go write a protocool design doc
13:39:38 [DaveB]
DanC - what's new is services ...
13:39:55 [DaveB]
... marketplace here - can you convince these services to conform to this
13:40:48 [DaveB]
ACTION Kendall: write a protocol document draft
13:40:57 [ericP]
Annotea protocol -->
13:41:10 [AlbertoR]
+1 Kendall
13:41:23 [DaveB]
EricP - my code does this annotea protocol
13:41:35 [AlbertoR]
I can help to review the doc
13:41:52 [DaveB]
POST to make a doc, GET to get it (sic)
13:42:07 [DaveB]
query the service about a doc
13:42:47 [DaveB]
looking at
13:42:57 [DaveB]
but doesn't show the url encoding of the algae query
13:43:32 [DaveB]
DanC - not customised for info for us; re URLs
13:43:43 [DaveB]
EricP - issues brouguht up - querying a document or querying a service?
13:43:52 [DaveB]
... seems to be we are prefering querying a service
13:43:55 [DaveB]
13:44:15 [DanC_lap]
NEW ISSUE: protocol URIs are for services or for document/graph/models?
13:45:01 [DaveB]
Kendall - starting from Joseki, first thing I want to address is the above issue
13:45:10 [DaveB]
... "What are you sending your query to?"
13:45:25 [TomAdams]
TomAdams has joined #dawg
13:46:06 [DaveB]
EricP - other issue ... if you are sending a query to the service not to the document....
13:47:19 [DaveB]
13:47:42 [DaveB]
... CGI url-encoded the params
13:49:13 [ericP]
GET /service?rq23=SELECT * FROM <../doc1> WHERE (?s ?p ?o)
13:49:41 [DanC_lap]
ACTION 7 = KendallC: draft a protocol document (est delivery in 1 month)
13:50:12 [DaveB]
discussion of FROM in the QL
13:50:23 [ericP]
GET /service?from=../doc1&rq23=SELECT * WHERE (?s ?p ?o)
13:51:28 [ericP]
GET /doc1&rq23=SELECT * WHERE (?s ?p ?o)
13:52:19 [DaveB]
comparing to GET index.tmpl?page=12345
13:53:21 [DaveB]
and URIs like /index.tmpl/12345
13:53:33 [DanC_lap]
(evolution of ?foo is not in URI-space, where as evolution of /doc1 and /service is)
13:54:18 [DaveB]
EricP - if we send a queyr to the document rather than service, we loose some of the document compositibility possibilities
13:54:39 [Yoshio]
13:54:45 [DaveB]
however it's easy to see how to do this lke a ,rdf-query=.... suffix to a web page (W3C tech)
13:55:17 [DanC_lap]
ACTION ericp: follow up on " if we send a queyr to the document rather than service, we loose some of the document compositibility possibilities" in email
13:55:25 [DaveB]
querying an aggregation - give it a uri
13:55:54 [DaveB]
new item
13:55:59 [DaveB]
border of query language and protocol
13:56:24 [DanC_lap]
"source of a triple"
13:57:20 [DaveB]
DanC presents email above
13:57:21 [dirkx]
dirkx has joined #dawg
14:00:36 [danbri_dna]
danbri_dna has joined #dawg
14:01:02 [DaveB]
data + rdfs rules & applying the query
14:02:13 [DaveB]
let's not bind ?src to a.rdf, when it's not the graph you qyer
14:02:15 [DaveB]
14:02:47 [DaveB]
... the graph queried is triples in a.rdf + more triples made by inferencing
14:03:07 [DaveB]
AndyS - it's something else and important, so give it a different URI
14:03:23 [rob]
I think it's an extremely bad idea to standardize anything which is expected to read a language definition as input and also process that language...Goedel said a few things about the generality of this approach...
14:03:37 [DaveB]
SteveH - provenance issue also - was it said or implied
14:10:28 [DaveB]
point is, to keep a.rdf and it's rdfs closure distinct
14:11:33 [DaveB]
currently we have source that in FROM is the URI of documents
14:11:49 [DaveB]
but SOURCE that is the graph (?)
14:13:23 [DaveB]
ref to section 10
14:13:33 [Yoshio]
Hmm, as long as we don't have a name for a graph, what can we do?
14:13:43 [DaveB]
... to query pattern GP on G+mapping from URIs to graphs (or resources to grpah)
14:13:49 [DaveB]
[need to think more, DanC]
14:15:45 [ericP]
Yoshio, my guess is we can get away withont a name for the graph
14:15:57 [DaveB]
agenda review
14:16:43 [rob]
kendallc ok, this sucks, but it's at least different:
14:16:43 [rob]
kendallc It should be possible to query an RDF graph to find the parents,
14:16:43 [rob]
kendallc children, and instances of a class, as well as the types and
14:16:43 [rob]
kendallc properties of instances. Syntactic sugar for these kinds of query
14:17:15 [rob]
kendallc shall be considered to satisfy this objective.
14:17:57 [DaveB]
ground facts
14:18:35 [DaveB]
Kendall - kind of schema queries that rdf schema editor tools
14:18:39 [Yoshio]
query such things to a RDF graph? whta objective? (I lost the context)
14:18:47 [DaveB]
... like all the jena methods (above) for querying models [for schema info]
14:18:48 [DanC_lap]
14:19:38 [DaveB]
EricP - might be a mechanism that looks like the extension mechanism for other features
14:19:43 [DaveB]
14:20:01 [DaveB]
AndyS - in Jena, two places comes up - in Ontology API
14:20:09 [DaveB]
where you are actually looking at the Ontology
14:20:17 [DaveB]
such as in an ontology editor
14:20:23 [TomAdams]
TomAdams has joined #dawg
14:20:26 [DaveB]
other place is in the rules engine
14:20:43 [DaveB]
when you want to write a rule that does direct subclass/not
14:20:53 [DaveB]
and does this via magic properties
14:20:55 [DaveB]
no reall other choice
14:21:01 [DaveB]
if you only have triples
14:21:06 [DaveB]
14:21:17 [DaveB]
SteveH: could have a keyworrd GROUND
14:21:25 [DaveB]
AndyS or FROM on a triple
14:21:35 [DaveB]
like tucana does
14:22:37 [DaveB]
I see serql has {X} serql:directSubClassOf {Y}
14:22:40 [DaveB]
14:24:00 [DanC_lap]
kc on 4.6
14:24:09 [kendallc]
SeRQL and RQL both have this kind of support
14:25:51 [DaveB]
go in as a use case?
14:26:23 [DaveB]
some people want that
14:28:33 [DaveB]
RobS could get the inferencer to add extra triples/properties to describe what is/isn't ground
14:31:19 [DanC_lap]
discussion of 4.6 shows support for the ontology editor use-case, but not much support for any paticular objective
14:32:40 [DanC_lap]
ACTION KendallC: provided updated UC&R as candidate for publication. [due in the next 2 to 3 weeks, in time to get the WG to decide on 5 Oct]
14:33:14 [DanC_lap]
DONE: ACTION Kendall: Pester Aditya about scheme/metascheme query support re: SWOOP
14:33:24 [AndyS]
14:34:16 [DanC_lap]
DONE: TomA: finding a use-case for distinguishing direct and indirect transitive predicates.
14:34:38 [TomAdams]
I've asked some of customers for input on this, no reply to date.
14:35:08 [TomAdams]
I wouldn't really call it a use case, just a statement of what we've implemented, and how it's exposed.
14:38:32 [AlbertoR]
14:38:40 [DanC_lap]
that's good enough for us, TomA
14:39:00 [DaveB]
from source mean different things?
14:39:35 [DaveB]
service, document, graph
14:39:47 [DaveB]
FROM is service|document but also graph?
14:39:55 [DaveB]
SOURCE deals with a graph?
14:40:45 [DaveB]
AndyS - FROM makes a graph from URIs given in the FROM
14:40:51 [DaveB]
whereas SOURCE refers to that graph
14:40:58 [DaveB]
Alberto - FROM is the graph
14:41:06 [DaveB]
... the protocol action
14:41:10 [DaveB]
... wherase SOURCE is about the graph
14:41:49 [DaveB]
... here some property dc:source could related a document and a graph
14:41:54 [DaveB]
... or dawg:source
14:41:58 [DaveB]
DanC - like log:semantics
14:42:42 [DaveB]
graphs seem to be in the data model
14:43:53 [DaveB]
request to write a query that uses FROM that cannot be done with SOURCE
14:44:18 [DaveB]
Alberto - virtual graphs such as in the foaf personal example from Alberto
14:45:09 [DanC_lap]
ACTION Alberto/Steve: edit the examples in into test cases (either positive or negative tests)
14:45:34 [DaveB]
14:46:16 [DanC_lap]
break for :15
15:25:04 [DaveB]
well, 15ish
15:26:25 [DanC_lap]
-- resume
15:26:38 [DaveB]
we're back
15:27:10 [DaveB]
4.2 & 4.5 pending
15:27:30 [DaveB]
Kendall - consolidate 4.2 & 4.5
15:27:55 [DaveB]
RobS - think we have accepted them as objectives
15:28:38 [kendallc]
andy thinks they are diff
15:29:50 [DaveB]
4.2 doesn't talk about the target of a query
15:29:57 [DaveB]
or querying
15:30:01 [Yoshio]
4.2== SOURCE, 4.5 == FROM?
15:30:09 [DaveB]
4.5 specifying more than one target, more about the input side of the query
15:30:26 [DaveB]
AndyS ... 4.2 allows you to get the information out
15:31:07 [DaveB]
Alberto see as FROM, where you get the data - merge
15:31:25 [DaveB]
... and 4.5 some way to connect to sources, but more about providing some constraints in how you merge them
15:31:34 [DaveB]
... 4.5 ismore general
15:33:29 [DaveB]
4.2 bigger graphs merge, from
15:33:41 [DaveB]
4.5 dealing with virtual graph exposing multiple sources
15:33:58 [DanC_lap]
(some comments about the shortness of the objectives, inter alia )
15:35:28 [TomAdams]
TomAdams has joined #dawg
15:38:20 [DaveB]
suggestion torename 4.2 to "9 Querying the Origin of Statements" from rq23
15:39:28 [DanC_lap]
kc: ammendment: s/Origin/Source/
15:42:18 [DaveB]
rdf repositories - data from multiple sources
15:43:35 [DaveB]
proposal to swap 4.2/4.5 titles
15:43:45 [Yoshio]
Hmm, ambiguous
15:43:51 [DanC_lap]
PROPOSED: "4.2 Querying Multiple Sources ... which of the available rdf graphs ..."
15:44:20 [Yoshio]
Querying Multiple Sources could be read as "Quering to Multiple Soruces", no?
15:45:41 [DanC_lap]
PROPOSED: "4.2 Querying Multiple Sources ... which of the available rdf graphs ..." and "4.5 Querying the origin of triples ... can be used for data integration and aggregation ..."
15:46:41 [Yoshio]
Why do we need "Multiple" then?
15:46:48 [Yoshio]
in 4.2
15:47:00 [DanC_lap]
multiple as opposed to one
15:47:13 [Yoshio]
but what we get is one source
15:47:26 [ericP]
from multiple sources
15:47:33 [DanC_lap]
no, I read "which of the available rdf graphs" plural
15:47:34 [Yoshio]
15:48:03 [Yoshio]
Hmm, English is difficult
15:49:32 [rob]
4.2 Querying Multiple Sources
15:49:33 [rob]
It should be possible for a query to specify which of the available RDF graphs it is to be executed against. If more than one RDF graph is specified, the result is as if the query had been executed against the merge of the specified RDF graphs. Query processors with a single available RDF graph trivially satisfy this objective.
15:49:58 [rob]
4.5 Querying the origin of statements
15:49:59 [rob]
RDF can be used for data integration and aggregation. RDF repositories are built by merging RDF triples from several other RDF repositories or from non-RDF sources converted to RDF. Such an aggregations can be real or virtual.
15:49:59 [rob]
It must be possible for the query language and protocol to allow an RDF repository to expose the source from which a query server collected a triple or subgraph.
15:50:51 [DanC_lap]
15:52:06 [kendallc]
4.2 Querying Multiple Sources
15:52:06 [kendallc]
RDF can be used for data integration and aggregation. RDF repositories
15:52:06 [kendallc]
are built by merging RDF triples from several other RDF repositories
15:52:06 [kendallc]
or from non-RDF sources converted to RDF. Such an aggregations can be
15:52:06 [kendallc]
real or virtual.
15:52:09 [kendallc]
It must be possible for the query language and protocol to allow an
15:52:11 [kendallc]
RDF repository to expose the source from which a query server
15:52:14 [kendallc]
collected a triple or subgraph.
15:52:16 [kendallc]
4.5 Querying the Origins of Statements
15:52:19 [kendallc]
It should be possible for a query to specify which of the available
15:52:21 [kendallc]
RDF graphs it is to be executed against. If more than one RDF graph is
15:52:24 [kendallc]
specified, the result is as if the query had been executed against the
15:52:26 [kendallc]
merge of the specified RDF graphs. Some services may allow queries
15:52:29 [kendallc]
against only one graph; they are considered to trivially satisfy this
15:52:31 [kendallc]
15:52:34 [kendallc]
While a variety of use cases motivate this feature, one reason it
15:52:36 [kendallc]
isn't a requirement is that it's not clear whether it can be
15:52:39 [kendallc]
implemented in a generally scalable fashion.
15:52:43 [DanC_lap]
15:54:30 [dirkx]
It should be possibe for a query to specify against which triples it must be excecuted based on the source of that triple as defined in 4.2
15:57:18 [dirkx]
4.2 Data Integration and Aggregation
15:57:19 [dirkx]
15:57:24 [dirkx]
4.2.1 - Querying mutliple soruces
15:57:25 [dirkx]
15:57:30 [dirkx]
4.2.2 Querying based on Source
15:57:31 [dirkx]
15:59:16 [kendallc]
4.2 RDF Aggregation and Querying the Origins of Statements
15:59:16 [kendallc]
RDF can be used for data integration and aggregation. RDF repositories
15:59:16 [kendallc]
are built by merging RDF triples from several other RDF repositories
15:59:16 [kendallc]
or from non-RDF sources converted to RDF. Such an aggregations can be
15:59:16 [kendallc]
real or virtual.
15:59:18 [kendallc]
It must be possible for the query language and protocol to allow an
15:59:21 [kendallc]
RDF repository to expose the source from which a query server
15:59:23 [kendallc]
collected a triple or subgraph. It must also be possible for a query
15:59:26 [kendallc]
to specify which of the available RDF graphs it is to be executed
15:59:28 [kendallc]
against. If more than one RDF graph is specified, the result is as if
15:59:31 [kendallc]
the query had been executed against the merge of the specified RDF
15:59:33 [kendallc]
graphs. Some services may allow queries against only one graph; they
15:59:36 [kendallc]
are considered to trivially satisfy this objective.
15:59:48 [DanC_lap]
16:00:42 [dirkx]
4.2 data integration and aggregation
16:01:04 [dirkx]
4.2 data integration and aggregation
16:01:11 [dirkx]
4.2 data integration and aggregation
16:01:18 [dirkx]
RDF can be used for data integration and aggregation. RDF repositories
16:03:00 [ericP]
If more than one RDF graph is specified, the query is executed against the merge of the specified RDF graphs.
16:03:41 [ericP]
replacing "If more than one RDF graph is specified, the result is as if the query had been executed against the merge of the specified RDF grpahs."
16:03:53 [dirkx]
dirkx has joined #dawg
16:08:38 [AlbertoR]
dirkx proposed wording
16:09:28 [rob]
It must be possible for queries to ask for data from multiple
16:09:34 [rob]
rdf sources.
16:09:37 [dirkx]
dirkx has joined #dawg
16:09:45 [rob]
It must be possible to query the origin of statements.
16:10:24 [Yoshio]
Dirk? what's the difference between 4.2.1 and 4.2.3?
16:10:49 [DaveB]
a repository can have multiple sources; there can be multiple sources wih multiple repositories
16:11:01 [ericP]
(query Q1 on A) U (query Q1 on B)
16:11:11 [ericP]
query Q1 on (A U B)
16:11:16 [dirkx]
Andy brings up a good point; the Origin Server problem versus the Server problem
16:11:55 [dirkx]
And that is not clear if you do not already have the pre-conveived idea
16:13:24 [DaveB]
AndyS - don't like 4.2.1 distributed query implication
16:14:52 [DaveB]
Kendall would change "to expose the source from which that query server collected " to remove the specificity
16:20:26 [ericP]
s/listed in/expressed in/
16:24:54 [DaveB]
considering a replacement for 4.2&4.5 being composed in email
16:25:58 [DaveB]
16:26:02 [DaveB]
objection RobS
16:26:08 [DaveB]
abstain SteveH
16:26:14 [DaveB]
on email yet to be sent ... hold on
16:26:49 [DaveB]
16:27:00 [Yoshio]
re: inserting "over" +1 to Andy --- representing non-natives :)
16:27:02 [DaveB]
words in
16:27:10 [DaveB]
^- are the decided words
16:27:34 [DaveB]
kendall has editorial action to do wordmunging
16:28:32 [DaveB]
move to adjourn
16:28:36 [DaveB]
16:28:38 [DanC_lap]
16:28:43 [danbri_dna]
congrats ;)
16:54:40 [AndyS]
AndyS has joined #dawg
16:55:45 [afs]
afs has joined #dawg
16:56:10 [afs_]
afs_ has joined #dawg