IRC log of dawg on 2006-01-24

Timestamps are in UTC.

14:31:38 [RRSAgent]
RRSAgent has joined #dawg
14:31:41 [RRSAgent]
logging to
14:31:43 [patH]
patH has joined #dawg
14:31:43 [Zakim]
14:31:54 [ericP]
Meeting: RDF Data Access
14:32:01 [ericP]
Chair: DanC
14:32:02 [DanC]
Zakim, take up item Convene
14:32:02 [Zakim]
agendum 1. "Convene" taken up [from DanC]
14:32:15 [DanC]
Regrets: libby
14:32:17 [ericP]
Scribe: EricP
14:32:24 [ericP]
Scribe: ericP
14:32:32 [Zakim]
14:34:59 [DanC]
-> major technical: semantics are poorly specified
14:35:09 [LeeF]
zakim, mute me please
14:35:09 [Zakim]
LeeF should now be muted
14:35:22 [DanC]
Zakim, who's on the phone?
14:35:22 [Zakim]
On the phone I see AndyS, EliasT, jeen, EricP, LeeF (muted), Sven_Groppe, Kendall_Clark, DanC, PatH
14:36:13 [DanC]
-> minutes 17 Jan
14:36:15 [EnricoFranconi]
EnricoFranconi has joined #DAWG
14:36:23 [DanC]
agenda + ftf update
14:36:29 [kendallclark]
Pretty sad that I can recognize EricP's typing over telcon audio... Stockholm Syndrom for Geeks?
14:36:45 [Zakim]
14:37:03 [ericP]
zakim, please dial ericP-415
14:37:03 [Zakim]
ok, ericP; the call is being made
14:37:04 [Zakim]
14:37:19 [kendallclark]
14:37:39 [DanC]
RESOLVED to accept minutes 17 Jan
14:38:10 [DanC]
PROPOSED: to meet again Thu, 26 Jan 1600Z; recruit scribe
14:38:16 [DanC]
Zakim, who's talking?
14:38:17 [kendallclark]
zakim, mute me
14:38:17 [Zakim]
Kendall_Clark should now be muted
14:38:24 [DanC]
regrets JeenB for 26 Jan
14:38:25 [LeeF]
I can scribe.
14:38:28 [Zakim]
DanC, listening for 11 seconds I heard sound from the following: AndyS (4%), jeen (44%), Sven_Groppe (8%), EricP (40%)
14:39:01 [DanC]
RESOLVED: to meet again 26 Jan, lee to scribe
14:39:23 [DanC]
Zakim, next item
14:39:23 [Zakim]
agendum 2. "Toward updated protocol WD (and results format WD)" taken up [from DanC]
14:40:16 [DanC]
FYI: wg extended to 1 May
14:40:23 [kendallclark]
zakim, unmute me
14:40:23 [Zakim]
Kendall_Clark should no longer be muted
14:40:42 [DanC]
-> wg schedule
14:40:57 [ericP]
DanC: Activity extended through 1 May, (and implicitly DAWG charter?)
14:41:21 [kendallclark]
14:41:23 [Zakim]
14:41:29 [EnricoFranconi]
zakim, IPcaller is me
14:41:29 [Zakim]
+EnricoFranconi; got it
14:41:35 [DanC]
Zakim, next item
14:41:35 [Zakim]
agendum 3. "issues rdfSemantics, owlDisjunction" taken up [from DanC]
14:41:38 [ericP]
... extension message cited in the histroy section
14:41:47 [ericP]
-> histroy section
14:42:06 [DanC]
PROPOSED: that SPARQL QL editor's draft v1.613 2006/01/23 13:13:08 addresses issue rdfSemantics and is sufficient to postpone issue owlDisjunction.
14:42:21 [DanC]
-> editor's draft of SPARQL QL
14:42:37 [DanC]
EF: 2nd
14:42:37 [ericP]
Enrico: agreed
14:43:00 [LeeF]
There are still a bunch of @@'s in the current draft.
14:43:07 [LeeF]
(Well, maybe not a bunch, but some.)
14:43:14 [ericP]
PatH: has options. needs editorial completion
14:43:40 [ericP]
AndyS: two proposals on how to frame extensions in a separate document
14:43:50 [ericP]
... 1. set of hooks
14:44:07 [kendallclark]
(there's an extensions document?)
14:44:27 [ericP]
... 2. extension document gives relations back to the core (SPARQL Query) document
14:44:46 [ericP]
... pref to keep as much in the extension document as possible
14:44:57 [LeeF]
zakim, unmute me
14:44:59 [Zakim]
LeeF should no longer be muted
14:45:05 [Zakim]
14:45:36 [ericP]
PatH: my second issue (mail sent last night): definition of graph pattern
14:45:37 [Zakim]
14:45:48 [Jos_De_Roo]
Jos_De_Roo has joined #dawg
14:46:31 [patH]
14:46:53 [Zakim]
14:46:59 [ericP]
-> PatH's mail stating his second issue
14:50:17 [ericP]
Enrico: PatH's proposal doesn't close the RDFS and OWL entailment
14:50:32 [ericP]
... extensions have to *contradict* the standard
14:50:37 [DanC]
Zakim, is Sven on the phone?
14:50:37 [Zakim]
I don't understand your question, DanC.
14:50:38 [patH]
Enrico is wrong about that. For OWL we do need to adjust things.
14:50:43 [DanC]
Zakim, is Sven here?
14:50:43 [Zakim]
probably, DanC; Sven_Groppe arrived 19 minutes ago
14:50:59 [SvenGroppe]
SvenGroppe has joined #dawg
14:51:43 [ericP]
... introducing simple entailment gives you upward compatibility problems
14:52:05 [ericP]
PatH: we can fix the wording to address this in the current text
14:52:10 [DanC]
(musts and shoulds are for protocols)
14:53:27 [ericP]
Enrico: why not just have subgraph matching in the core document?
14:56:06 [kendallclark]
I just don't believe shutting off discussion *in this way* is especially helpful or fair or even polite. My two cents.
14:56:19 [ericP]
Enrico: are we agreeing that we have a normative general definition?
14:57:38 [ericP]
PatH: should the SPARQL spec place normative constraints on how logic extension behave?
14:59:36 [ericP]
... I think we can take your point under advisement and satisfy your request
15:00:25 [patH]
the current text has the general defintion as normative. We just said this is acceptable, up to editorail changes. Edirtorial changes do not change normativity , so :-)
15:00:41 [patH]
That was adresed to Enrico.
15:02:28 [DanC]
Zakim, who's on the phone?
15:02:28 [Zakim]
On the phone I see AndyS, EliasT, jeen, Sven_Groppe, Kendall_Clark, DanC, PatH, EricP, EnricoFranconi, LeeF, Jos_De_Roo
15:02:37 [EliasT]
15:02:40 [EliasT]
I'm muted
15:02:46 [ericP]
Enrico: Will we keep the definition of ordered merge and scoping set, ... all of section 2.5
15:02:50 [EliasT]
I don't know
15:02:56 [DanC]
ack jeen
15:03:23 [ericP]
Jeen: don't know -- abstain
15:03:37 [ericP]
Sven: i think that ordered merge definition is not formal enough
15:03:43 [DanC]
Sven gets a gold star for coming up to speed quickly.
15:04:15 [ericP]
... it's currently semiformal
15:04:26 [ericP]
KendallC: we're generally happy with that section
15:04:35 [kendallclark]
*very informatively*
15:05:12 [ericP]
DanC: don't find ordered merge (seems complex) appealing, but if it describes peoples code, am reluctanly happy with it
15:05:17 [kendallclark]
(pure curiosity, dan!)
15:05:29 [ericP]
PatH: don't think we need ordered merge. rest are fine
15:06:17 [DanC]
q+ to note a new requirement on the horizon
15:06:20 [kendallclark]
is the referent of "extensions document" real or imaginary?
15:06:27 [AndyS]
15:06:32 [kendallclark]
15:07:18 [ericP]
ericP: would like someone to write an extension document and see if it contradicts the spec. happy either way. more confident if the extension is attempted
15:07:31 [DanC]
lee also gets a gold star for following many details
15:08:07 [ericP]
LeeF: happier if we don't need ordered merge and d-entailment in the core spec, but if we need that for upwards compatibile, i'm happy
15:08:33 [LeeF]
15:08:48 [ericP]
JosD: Disagree that it does not say that blank nodes in a graph pattern are variables
15:09:02 [ericP]
s/Disagree that/Disagree because/
15:09:31 [ericP]
AndyS: current inclination is to not use ordered merge and use the ^^:: text
15:09:54 [ericP]
... the ordered merge is not how implementations do it
15:10:12 [DanC]
(it's not a priority for me that the formal definitions match implementation techniques)
15:10:37 [ericP]
... we've rushed through how SPARQL is extended. concentrating on simple entailment with as much latitude as is reasonable
15:10:42 [kendallclark]
zakim, mute me
15:10:42 [Zakim]
Kendall_Clark should now be muted
15:10:53 [EnricoFranconi]
implementations do subgraph matching, not ordered merge
15:10:53 [AndyS]
15:10:55 [ericP]
15:11:00 [EnricoFranconi]
ordered merge is useful only for upward compatibility
15:13:28 [ericP]
ACTION: PatH revise Enrico's "Proposed changes" on matching and entailment for solution sequences, esp w.r.t. RDFmerge/order. seems done; there has certainly been lots of relevant mail [DONE]
15:13:39 [DanC]
proposal to edit readme
15:13:42 [ericP]
action -1
15:14:02 [ericP]
ACTION: Enrico to review draft text on matching and entailment for solution sequences seems done; there has certainly been lots of relevant mail [DONE]
15:14:10 [ericP]
action -2
15:14:18 [DanC]
ACTION AndyS: implement test README change from
15:14:30 [DanC]
# ACTION: JosD to make test case from Sergio's basic query patterns examples
15:14:42 [Jos_De_Roo]
15:16:13 [ericP]
[discussion of ACTION: JosD to make test case from Sergio's basic query patterns examples]
15:18:21 [ericP]
DanC: AndyS, what would the disposition of these tests be with would your favorite definitions?
15:19:07 [ericP]
AndyS: yes to 1. requires new text in the test cases doc.
15:19:51 [ericP]
PatH: current definitions break the second answer
15:21:14 [ericP]
ACTION: JosD to put into a test manifest
15:21:44 [LeeF]
The 3rd solution breaks some of the coreferentiality of _:a_0
15:26:31 [DanC]
ACTION AndyS: revise rq23 to remove @@s from 2.5
15:27:24 [ericP]
ACTION: JosD to make test case from Sergio's basic query patterns examples [DONE]
15:27:34 [ericP]
action -6
15:27:46 [DanC]
Zakim, next item
15:27:46 [Zakim]
agendum 4. "issues#valueTesting" taken up [from DanC]
15:27:47 [patH]
eric, you sound like you are inside a very long metal tube.
15:28:09 [Zakim]
15:28:53 [ericP]
15:29:20 [kendallclark]
zakim, unmute me
15:29:20 [Zakim]
Kendall_Clark should no longer be muted
15:29:20 [ericP]
zakim, take up agendum 4
15:29:21 [Zakim]
agendum 4. "issues#valueTesting" taken up [from DanC]
15:29:32 [kendallclark]
zakim, mute me
15:29:32 [Zakim]
Kendall_Clark should now be muted
15:30:23 [ericP]
15:31:48 [ericP]
15:31:55 [DanC]
"Casting in SPARQL is performed by calling a constructor function for the target type on an operand of the source type."
15:32:55 [ericP]
15:33:03 [DanC]
PROPOPSED: that 1.613 section 11 addresses issues#valueTesting
15:33:42 [DanC]
(looking for comments pending on this issue... )
15:34:11 [DanC]
q+ to ask about Levering's question
15:34:19 [DanC]
ack danc
15:34:19 [Zakim]
DanC, you wanted to ask about Levering's question
15:35:18 [DanC]
PatH: note equivilence typo
15:35:25 [ericP]
DanC: can you address Ryan Levering'S comment?
15:35:50 [ericP]
EricP: yes, current text addresses them
15:35:53 [kendallclark]
zakim, unmute me
15:35:53 [Zakim]
Kendall_Clark should no longer be muted
15:36:08 [DanC]
RESOLVED, UMD abstaining
15:36:18 [DanC]
RESOLVED: that 1.613 section 11 addresses issues#valueTesting
15:36:38 [DanC]
Zakim, agenda?
15:36:38 [Zakim]
I see 4 items remaining on the agenda:
15:36:39 [Zakim]
4. issues#valueTesting [from DanC]
15:36:40 [Zakim]
5. Toward CR [from DanC]
15:36:41 [Zakim]
6. test suite maintenance [from DanC]
15:36:43 [Zakim]
7. ftf update [from DanC]
15:36:48 [DanC]
Zakim, take up item 7
15:36:48 [Zakim]
agendum 7. "ftf update" taken up [from DanC]
15:37:29 [patH]
15:37:33 [ericP]
15:37:46 [AndyS]
F2F: 2/3 March at Cannes (W3C all groups meetng)
15:38:17 [AndyS]
Agenda covers: LC issues + features to postpone + SPARQL v2
15:38:29 [DanC]
q+ to ask in stongest possible terms that we finish LC comments well before the TP
15:39:00 [AndyS]
Also meeting #SWIG (Thurs) and RIF (MoTu), SWBPD?
15:39:19 [AndyS]
SWBPD maybe Friday
15:39:22 [DanC]
ack danc
15:39:22 [Zakim]
DanC, you wanted to ask in stongest possible terms that we finish LC comments well before the TP
15:39:56 [AndyS]
DanC suggests strongly not having LC issues on agenda
15:40:36 [DanC]
-> registration
15:40:38 [kendallclark]
I would love to come to Cannes again... but I didn't know we were meeting and I declined the trip when my boss asked. :)
15:40:41 [kendallclark]
oh well
15:40:59 [AndyS]
we conclude registration is open (for all meetings at AllGroups)
15:41:11 [DanC]
(to repeat: I'm more likely to be at the IG meeting than at DAWG)
15:41:14 [patH]
I very much doubt I will be able to make it, but could phone in to any discussions if its worth trying.
15:41:31 [kendallclark]
zakim, unmute me
15:41:31 [Zakim]
Kendall_Clark was not muted, kendallclark
15:41:32 [DanC]
Zakim, agenda?
15:41:32 [Zakim]
I see 4 items remaining on the agenda:
15:41:34 [Zakim]
4. issues#valueTesting [from DanC]
15:41:35 [Zakim]
5. Toward CR [from DanC]
15:41:37 [Zakim]
6. test suite maintenance [from DanC]
15:41:38 [Zakim]
7. ftf update [from DanC]
15:41:52 [DanC]
Zakim, close item 4
15:41:52 [Zakim]
agendum 4, issues#valueTesting, closed
15:41:53 [Zakim]
I see 3 items remaining on the agenda; the next one is
15:41:54 [Zakim]
5. Toward CR [from DanC]
15:42:22 [DanC]
Zakim, close item 5
15:42:22 [Zakim]
agendum 5, Toward CR, closed
15:42:24 [Zakim]
I see 2 items remaining on the agenda; the next one is
15:42:27 [DanC]
15:42:28 [Zakim]
6. test suite maintenance [from DanC]
15:42:31 [ericP]
15:42:33 [Zakim]
15:42:37 [Zakim]
15:42:38 [Zakim]
15:42:46 [Zakim]
15:44:55 [Zakim]
15:44:56 [AndyS]
AndyS has left #dawg
15:46:05 [Zakim]
15:46:06 [Zakim]
15:46:10 [Zakim]
15:46:26 [Zakim]
15:46:37 [Zakim]
15:46:39 [Zakim]
SW_DAWG()9:30AM has ended
15:46:40 [Zakim]
Attendees were Sven_Groppe, AndyS, jeen, EliasT, EricP, LeeF, Kendall_Clark, DanC, PatH, EnricoFranconi, Jos_De_Roo
15:47:07 [SvenGroppe]
SvenGroppe has left #dawg
15:57:52 [EliasT]
EliasT has joined #dawg
16:06:10 [SteveH]
SteveH has joined #dawg
16:41:19 [EliasT]
RRSAgent, please stop