14:20:10 RRSAgent has joined #dawg 14:20:10 logging to http://www.w3.org/2006/09/05-dawg-irc 14:20:41 Zakim: this will be DAWG 14:20:46 Zakim, this will be DAWG 14:20:46 ok, kendallclark, I see SW_DAWG()10:30AM already started 14:21:15 Andy, have you had a chance to look at the FILTER stuff at all? 14:21:50 hmm, zakim thinks we've already started 14:21:50 odd 14:22:07 zakim, agenda+ Convene 14:22:08 agendum 1 added 14:22:10 Zakim, what exactly are you smoking? 14:22:10 I don't understand your question, LeeF. 14:22:13 That might be my fault. I dialed in and it told me I was the first participant. 14:22:16 zakim, agenda+ action items 14:22:16 agendum 2 added 14:22:35 zakim, agenda+ Publication Schedules 14:22:35 agendum 3 added 14:22:58 -??P8 14:23:00 SW_DAWG()10:30AM has ended 14:23:01 Attendees were 14:23:07 uh... 14:23:12 that's sort of stupid 14:23:13 Okay, that was me hanging up. 14:23:20 Zakim, this will be DAWG 14:23:20 ok, kendallclark; I see SW_DAWG()10:30AM scheduled to start in 7 minutes 14:23:29 thank you, zakim 14:23:35 zakim, agenda? 14:23:35 I see 3 items remaining on the agenda: 14:23:36 1. Convene [from kendallclark] 14:23:38 2. action items [from kendallclark] 14:23:39 3. Publication Schedules [from kendallclark] 14:23:41 good 14:23:55 Chair: kendallclark 14:23:59 Scribe: LeeF 14:24:26 -sigh- 14:25:03 Hope it goes well for you! 14:27:39 thx :) 14:27:54 to make things perfect-er, DC is under *crazy* thunderstorms today 14:28:00 it's raining buckets, non-stop, for hrs 14:28:55 Now you're just TEASING those of us from drougt-aflicted climes... ;) 14:29:10 drought-afflicted 14:29:18 SW_DAWG()10:30AM has now started 14:29:25 +[IBMCambridge] 14:29:29 zakim, IBMCambridge is me 14:29:29 +LeeF; got it 14:29:51 +[IPcaller] 14:29:57 +??P9 14:29:59 zakim, ??P9 is me 14:29:59 +AndyS; got it 14:30:00 JanneS has joined #dawg 14:30:07 Hi Janne! 14:30:15 Hi Andy 14:30:37 +??P11 14:30:40 Zakim, ??P11 is me 14:30:40 +SimonR; got it 14:30:50 It's been a while... I hope everybody's been ok here? 14:31:05 +Kendall_Clark 14:31:14 zakim, mute me 14:31:14 Kendall_Clark should now be muted 14:31:25 zakim, unmute me 14:31:25 Kendall_Clark should no longer be muted 14:31:34 zakim, who's on the phone? 14:31:34 On the phone I see LeeF, [IPcaller], AndyS, SimonR, Kendall_Clark 14:31:35 LeeF, saw your FILTERs email. 14:31:43 Meeting: RDF DAWG Weekly 14:31:49 Regrets: BijanP 14:31:58 EliasT has joined #dawg 14:32:01 +Elias_Torres 14:32:14 Zakim, Elias_Torres is me 14:32:14 +EliasT; got it 14:32:25 +Fred_Zemke 14:32:37 that ip caller might be me - sounds like my mic is not working properly 14:32:42 Eric's here on IRC, and he helped wrangle a problem for me just earlier so I know he's awake. 14:32:42 JanneS? You dialed in? As [IPcaller]? 14:32:57 [IPcaller] is Janne 14:33:00 zakim, [IPcaller] is Janne 14:33:00 +Janne; got it 14:33:11 zakim, unmute Janne 14:33:11 Janne was not muted, kendallclark 14:33:25 FredZ has joined #dawg 14:33:27 zakim, who's on the phone 14:33:27 I don't understand 'who's on the phone', kendallclark 14:33:36 zakim, who's on the phone? 14:33:36 On the phone I see LeeF, Janne, AndyS, SimonR, Kendall_Clark, EliasT, Fred_Zemke 14:33:44 let me call via other phone - skype's no good today 14:33:52 bijan has joined #dawg 14:34:14 -Janne 14:34:15 zakim, take up agendum #1 14:34:15 '#1' does not match any agenda item, kendallclark 14:34:18 +JanneS 14:34:23 zakim, take up agendum 1 14:34:23 agendum 1. "Convene" taken up [from kendallclark] 14:34:49 http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-dawg/2006JulSep/0193.html 14:35:16 +[IPcaller] 14:35:22 zakim, ipcaller is me 14:35:22 +bijan; got it 14:35:24 http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-dawg/2006JulSep/0192.html 14:35:29 zakim, mute me 14:35:29 bijan should now be muted 14:35:44 PROPOSED accept http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-dawg/2006JulSep/0192.html at true record oflast week's meeting 14:35:59 Scribe: LeeF 14:36:02 +EricP 14:36:16 Chair: kendallclark 14:36:28 seconded and RESOLVED. 14:36:41 I'm available 14:36:56 zakim, please pick a scribe 14:36:56 Not knowing who is chairing or who scribed recently, I propose LeeF 14:37:07 zakim, please pick a scribe 14:37:07 Not knowing who is chairing or who scribed recently, I propose SimonR 14:37:21 RESOLVED to meet next week, Tue Sep 12, with SimonR scribing 14:37:59 -EliasT 14:38:31 +EliasT 14:39:33 zakim, take up next agendum 14:39:33 agendum 2. "action items" taken up [from kendallclark] 14:39:42 I am on the call 14:39:48 zakim, unmute me 14:39:48 bijan should no longer be muted 14:40:22 ACTION: bijan to review FredZ Constructive mapping semantics for SPARQL 18 Aug 14:40:23 CONTINUES 14:40:30 ACTION: Bijan to review FredZ 2 Aug and relate to WG issue list 14:40:32 CONTINUE 14:40:35 CONTINUES 14:40:41 This is the message that raised the issue: 14:40:41 http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-dawg/2006JulSep/ 14:40:41 0186.html 14:41:13 bijan: LeeF's message on filter -> 10 01http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-dawg/2006JulSep/0186.html 14:41:26 elias: http://www.w3.org/2006/08/29-dawg-minutes 14:41:32 zakim, who's talking? 14:41:33 bijan: Chileans believe scope of filter variables should be fairly narrow 14:41:43 kendallclark, listening for 10 seconds I heard sound from the following: bijan (95%), Kendall_Clark (39%) 14:41:49 zakim, mute me 14:41:49 Kendall_Clark should now be muted 14:42:16 complexity of SPARQL w/ nested optional is PSPACE? 14:42:16 bijan: nested OPTIONAL pushes up the worst case of SPARQL complexity quite high, which may be new information to reopen nested OPTIONAL issue 14:42:27 zakim, unmute me 14:42:27 Kendall_Clark should no longer be muted 14:42:53 kendallclark, the minutes are fine, but the IRC log is 403. 14:44:07 It's certainly new information, at least, IMO, -- the complexity results. 14:44:18 message 2006JulSep/0186 does not exist 14:44:19 I'm under the impression that we're pretty much obliged to support undecidable languages -- at the very least, OWL-Full... 14:44:30 In what way is it different from SQL? 14:44:56 LeeF: are we chartered to avoid putting constructs in the query language that bump up worst-case complexity? 14:45:17 bijan: not chartered as such, but it was input into decisions re: OPTIONAL at the Boston face to face and might be worth revisiting 14:45:24 AndyS, I don't know. Perhaps that'll dispose of the matter. I.e., it doesn't matter 14:45:31 SQL committee routinely adopts features that are known to be difficult 14:45:41 kendallclark: this is new information; proposals to simplify language based on new information are in order, and we will discuss further 14:45:45 on the grounds that you let the user decide whether to run such a query 14:45:51 -bijan 14:46:03 As far as I can see the complexity is the same as SQL - evidence: there is a mapping to SQL. 14:46:13 Right, that's my feeling as well. (Let the user decide whether to write hard or easy queries.) 14:46:25 ACTION: KC to consider a new issue "entailment framework", somewhat like rdfSemantics, though perhaps different 14:46:26 DONE 14:46:38 A polynominal mapping? 14:46:43 ACTION: KC to review FredZ 2 Aug for issue updates 14:46:44 FredZ, I agree 14:46:44 CONTINUES 14:46:45 zakim, who's on the phone? 14:46:45 On the phone I see LeeF, AndyS, SimonR, Kendall_Clark, Fred_Zemke, JanneS, EricP, EliasT 14:47:00 ACTION: Lee to figure out the next step toward publication of SPARQL results format er.. JSON in particular 14:47:00 DONE 14:47:09 I'll claim my action complete, with thanks to LeeF for forwarding it: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-dawg/2006JulSep/0195.html 14:47:09 ACTION: PatH to review FredZ Constructive mapping semantics for SPARQL 18 Aug 14:47:10 CONTINUES 14:47:11 Look, I'm not against computational complexity in general 14:47:13 obviously 14:47:21 1-1 mapping of query to a single SQL statement 14:47:23 ACTION: SimonR to review FredZ Constructive mapping semantics for SPARQL 18 Aug 14:47:24 +[IPcaller] 14:47:24 CONTINUES 14:47:30 zakim, ipcaller is me 14:47:30 +bijan; got it 14:47:31 zakim, take up next agendum 14:47:31 agendum 3. "Publication Schedules" taken up [from kendallclark] 14:47:34 zakim, mute me 14:47:34 bijan should now be muted 14:47:43 bijan, would you like your action re: Chilean semantics and filter to continue? 14:47:48 (well - not 1-1 : 1 query in, 1 query out) 14:47:48 My poitn is that people *have* raised that as a consideration against ceratin choices 14:47:49 Yes 14:47:57 ACTION: Bijan to see if the Chilean's semantics paper offers any advice re: filters 14:47:58 Yeah, so that doesn't show that the compelxity is the same 14:47:58 CONTINUES 14:48:07 Bounds it. 14:48:10 Nope 14:48:22 If you have to map it ot an exponential number of queries 14:48:30 How can the SPARQL query be more complex than it's implementation? 14:48:34 Or even an infintie number of queries 14:48:40 The implementation might not be complete 14:48:43 kendallclark: what are the editors thoughts on publishing rq24 as a working group WD to satisfy heartbeat requirement and let the community know where we are 14:48:47 The implementation is SQL + the mapping 14:48:55 If the mapping introduces exponentially many queries 14:49:05 Then the complexity of sparql is greater than SQL 14:49:17 zakim, agenda+ Complexity Considerations 14:49:17 agendum 4 added 14:49:19 ericP: happy to publish as is modulo pubrules ; we have questions that we need to ask the world about the query language (e.g. graph query vs. rdf semantics) 14:49:24 One query => one SQL statement 14:49:37 AndyS: The spec might admit simple solutions rather than one perfect, correct solution. In that way, the implementation might be *very* simple compared to the overall subtlety of the query language itself. 14:49:42 If the *size* of the query is exponential, it doesn't matte 14:49:46 Same issue 14:49:51 s/AndyS:/AndyS,/ 14:50:07 It isn't expoential. 14:50:10 Ok 14:50:13 But you didn't say that 14:50:31 And I'd want a proof that the reductioncaptures the semantics of the sparql 14:51:10 AndyS: what's the purpose of publishing something? 14:51:20 LeeF, ta. 14:51:24 (This is a standard technique for showing complexity: if you can give a polynominal reduction of one formalism to another of a known complexity, then you've established an upper bound) 14:51:24 kendallclark: we owe the world/community an update on what we've been doing 14:51:47 (But, afaik, no one has shown that for SPARQL relative to SQL, though I'm no expert on SQL complexity) 14:52:12 Err - the implementations? 14:52:27 -bijan 14:52:28 That's not a proof 14:52:30 I am considering writing a general technique for SPARQL->SQL 14:52:37 is that of interest? 14:52:46 Of course! 14:52:49 Very valuable, IMHO 14:52:56 Yes - and I think it's been done at least twice already. 14:53:01 ericP: i prefer to publish both rq24 and JSON results format, since rq24 is where our recent energies have been going and we haven't looked at JSON results format in a while 14:53:05 How do you know the implementation is acutally polynominal in every case? 14:53:27 Argh, calling in failures are frustrating me 14:53:46 zakim, who's on the phone? 14:53:47 On the phone I see LeeF, AndyS, SimonR, Kendall_Clark, Fred_Zemke, JanneS, EricP, EliasT 14:53:49 +[IPcaller] 14:53:53 zakim, ipcaller is me 14:53:53 +bijan; got it 14:53:57 zakim, mute me 14:53:57 bijan should now be muted 14:54:43 ACTION: SimonR to review rq24 [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2006/08/22-dawg-minutes.html#action07] 14:54:44 DONE 14:55:03 AndyS: what message are we trying to give to the community? 14:55:21 -bijan 14:55:47 AndyS: does publishing a WD remove us from CR? 14:56:06 +[IPcaller] 14:56:13 zakim, ipcaller is me 14:56:13 +bijan; got it 14:56:16 zakim, mute me 14:56:18 bijan should now be muted 14:56:52 I understand from DanC, last week, the WD knocks us out 14:57:16 XPath/Xquery published in CR with fixes. 14:57:34 zakim, unmute me 14:57:34 bijan should no longer be muted 14:57:36 q+ 14:57:40 q- 14:57:43 zakim, who's on the phone? 14:57:43 On the phone I see LeeF, AndyS, SimonR, Kendall_Clark, Fred_Zemke, JanneS, EricP, EliasT, bijan 14:57:45 To remain in CR, I'd suggest Andy is right, it'd take another editorial pass. 14:58:09 AndyS: knowing what happens with the status of the document affects what I spend my time on with respect to getting the text up to publishing quality 14:58:35 SimonR: i think publishing rq24 is the right step forward; if published as is (the fastest way forward), it's not CR material and we should publish as WD 14:58:56 SimonR: if we want to stay in CR, i suggest weneed to do some hole patching, but most of the hole patching is almost cosmetic. 14:59:06 SimonR: i say, go to WD and publish rq24 14:59:23 FredZ: i believe we should go to WD and I think current rq24 is better than current CR 15:00:23 ericP: i want to publish as quickly as possibly, but with a BIG RED NOTE asking for input into semantics 15:01:14 EliasT: i want topublish, but feel Andy's concerns about being careful going back into WD -- I think we need to make decisions quickly, and not go back into our pre-CR mode where we re-open lots of design decisions, etc. 15:01:42 If we drop back to WD, how long would it take to release a subsequent CR? Do was actually long any time that way compared to holding off on publishing until rq24 is tidied up? 15:01:59 Do we actually... 15:02:00 kendallclark: Going to WD does not open all old decisions -- still need burden of proof of new information to open new issues 15:02:08 SimonR - yes, in practice I can't see it not having that effect 15:02:17 EliasT: I agree; I think it's important to psychologically stay in a mode where we try to close issues and keep moving forward 15:02:37 IMO, having 7 open issues on the issues list means that the horse is already bolted from the barn -- to use a technical phrase :) 15:02:45 bijan: i don't think we can avoid going back to WD (DISTINCT alone being underspecificed will require significant changes to document that probably can't be published as patch to current CR document) 15:03:12 bijan: as Dan pointed out, we might be able to go straight from WD to PR without having another CR 15:03:30 bijan: i prefer to publish a WD sooner, perhaps with a list of issues that we're trying to resolve (and appropriate solicitation for help) 15:03:39 I do not agree with Bijan's summary of DISTINCT. 15:05:28 Slight rephrasing of what LeeF scribed: I think putting in a nailed definition of DISTINCT is sufficient to trigger another LC. (There may be no other ramifications.) 15:05:33 kendallclark: my preference is to publish rq24 as is modulo pubrules -- in status of the document section I want to point people to editorial changes and to point to issues lists, particularly open issues, and say that the WG is working to close issues, but we're not sure whta changes if any the issues will make in this document 15:06:33 ericP: don't think we have an open issue for whether bnodes have different semantics from variable 15:06:44 kendallclark: think I overloaded and reopened bnoderef for that issue 15:08:13 Zakim, mute me 15:08:13 EliasT should now be muted 15:08:14 zakim, mute me 15:08:15 bijan should now be muted 15:08:20 PROPOSAL: To publish rq24 as a Working Draft, including SOTD section written by EricP. 15:08:27 Sorry! 15:08:28 Zakim, unmute me 15:08:28 EliasT should no longer be muted 15:08:29 NP 15:08:32 zakim, who's making noise 15:08:32 I don't understand 'who's making noise', bijan 15:08:36 zakim, who's making noise? 15:08:49 bijan, listening for 10 seconds I heard sound from the following: AndyS (45%), Kendall_Clark (48%), EliasT (4%) 15:09:01 Zakim, mute me 15:09:01 EliasT should now be muted 15:09:29 q+ 15:09:41 zakim, who's on the phone? 15:09:41 On the phone I see LeeF, AndyS, SimonR, Kendall_Clark, Fred_Zemke, JanneS, EricP, EliasT (muted), bijan (muted) 15:09:43 q- 15:10:53 LeeF, AndyS: no strong opinion 15:11:21 SimonR: What prefer one more editorial pass 15:11:25 SimonR: Ideally, after a brief editorial pass, but immediately is fine 15:11:27 s/What/Would 15:11:43 kendallclark: prefers immediate publication, also happy with editorial pass if it took a day or two 15:12:04 FredZ: no opinion 15:12:11 JanneS: no opinion 15:12:32 EliasT: no strong opinion 15:12:33 zakim, unmute me 15:12:33 bijan should no longer be muted 15:12:36 ericP: no strong opinion other than wanting to put big red text in 15:13:00 zakim, mute me 15:13:00 bijan should now be muted 15:13:25 I prefer immediate, but am willing to defer to the editors, if they want to do some minor changes in a small timeframe 15:14:50 I'm happy to do that review 15:15:23 zakim, unmute me 15:15:23 bijan should no longer be muted 15:16:02 zakim, mute me 15:16:02 bijan should now be muted 15:16:52 PROPOSAL: To publish rq24 on or shortly after 19 September, after a sanity-check review by BijanP, and after SOTD updates by EricP. 15:17:26 ericP: seconded 15:17:52 RESOLVED, no objections, no abstentions 15:18:13 Zakim, unmute me 15:18:13 EliasT should no longer be muted 15:18:14 seconded! 15:18:24 seconded again! 15:18:24 seconded again! 15:18:44 PROPOSAL: To publish json results doc as a WG Note 15:18:49 erp 15:18:54 PROPOSAL: To publish json results doc as a WG Note ASAP. 15:18:57 heh 15:19:03 seconded 15:19:11 No 15:19:16 zakim, unmute me 15:19:16 bijan should no longer be muted 15:19:54 PROPOSAL: To publish json results doc as a WG Submission ASAP. 15:20:07 zakim, mute me 15:20:07 bijan should now be muted 15:20:12 seconded! 15:20:16 seconded! 15:20:28 We will need another WD after this one for SPARQL/language. 15:20:44 yes, at least a lc wd 15:20:47 RESOLVED, FredZ abstaining 15:21:11 But, as danc said last week, we could move to go to PR straight from LC 15:21:19 For the incompatible syntax changes. 15:21:46 Heh. ok, then just substitute those for my point about distinct :) 15:22:05 q+ 15:22:14 zakim, unmute me 15:22:14 bijan should no longer be muted 15:22:38 There are no changes there - clarification is needed, not change. 15:23:19 zakim, mute me 15:23:19 bijan should now be muted 15:23:56 Andy, well, i disagree with that, but for my point *above* all I need is that there is *some* change requiring WD status 15:24:34 And, for example, if we chose to use REALLYREALLYDISTINCT, which we could do, then I would imagine you'd feel that was a substantive change 15:26:12 ta all 15:26:16 secodn! 15:26:20 ADJOURNED. 15:26:22 -bijan 15:26:23 -Fred_Zemke 15:26:25 -JanneS 15:26:37 -LeeF 15:26:44 RRSAgent, stop. 15:26:44 I'm logging. I don't understand 'stop.', LeeF. Try /msg RRSAgent help 15:26:46 -SimonR 15:26:52 RRSAgent, stop logging 15:26:52 I'm logging. I don't understand 'stop logging', LeeF. Try /msg RRSAgent help 15:26:56 rrsagent, stop