See also: IRC log
<trackbot> Date: 23 June 2009
<AxelPolleres> dialing
<SteveH_> probably...
<LeeF> Scribenick: John
<john-l> Simon: I'm the primary IBM representative.
<LeeF> Scribenick: john-l
UNKNOWN_SPEAKER: I've been
working in the Rational group, on a new RDF-based platform, for
4 years.
... We rely heavily on SPARQL, and are very interested in
standardizing useful new features as a result.
... We are primarily interested in aggregates, and in updates
(in the longer term).
<iv_an_ru> Zakim +01212803 is me
<iv_an_ru> (probably)
<AxelPolleres> http://www.w3.org/2009/sparql/wiki/Agenda-2009-06-23
<AxelPolleres> http://www.w3.org/2009/sparql/meeting/2009-06-16
<LeeF> RESOLVED: Accept last week's minutes at http://www.w3.org/2009/sparql/meeting/2009-06-16
<ivan> regrets for next week, will be at a Dagstuhl workshop
LeeF: Kjetil can probably scribe next week.
AxelPolleres: Anything new with our liasons?
ivan: OWL 2 is now in CR.
LeeF: That includes rdf:text?
ivan: Yes.
<bglimm> rdf:text is now rdf:PlainLiteral in OWL 2
<LeeF> thanks, bglimm, i couldn't remember what the new name was :)
Ivan: We now have a chair for the RDB2RDF WG.
<AxelPolleres> s/???/ivan/
<SteveH_> ??? = ivan
<AxelPolleres> http://www.w3.org/2009/sparql/track/actions/open
AxelPolleres: Can we close any of these actions?
LeeF: I need to swap back in to work on action 16.
<iv_an_ru> Sorry, phone troubles again.
<LeeF> trackbot, close ACTION-42
<trackbot> ACTION-42 Ask team contacts whether http://www.w3.org/TR/sparql-features/ is ok closed
<LeeF> ACTION-44: see http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-dawg/2009AprJun/0392.html
<trackbot> ACTION-44 Mail NOT EXISTS example. notes added
<LeeF> trackbot, close ACTION-44
<trackbot> ACTION-44 Mail NOT EXISTS example. closed
<SteveH_> I would like to consider action 40 closed!
AxelPolleres: We had two F&R questions: first, the short name for the document.
ivan: We need to ask the domain admin for a green light on the desired short name.
The group discusses whether we need SPARQL versioning in the short name.
<LeeF> http://www.w3.org/2009/sparql/meeting/2009-06-16#resolution_2
<LeeF> ACTION: Ivan to request sparql-features as short name from Thomas R [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2009/06/23-sparql-minutes.html#action01]
<trackbot> Sorry, amibiguous username (more than one match) - Ivan
<trackbot> Try using a different identifier, such as family name or username (eg. ivan, imikhail)
<LeeF> ACTION: Mr. Herman to request sparql-features as short name from Thomas R [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2009/06/23-sparql-minutes.html#action02]
<trackbot> Sorry, couldn't find user - Mr.
And the group confirms that we already resolved to go with "sparql-features" as the short name.
<LeeF> ACTION: Ivan Herman to request sparql-features as short name from Thomas R [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2009/06/23-sparql-minutes.html#action03]
<trackbot> Sorry, amibiguous username (more than one match) - Ivan
<trackbot> Try using a different identifier, such as family name or username (eg. ivan, imikhail)
<LeeF> ACTION: Herman to request sparql-features as short name from Thomas R [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2009/06/23-sparql-minutes.html#action04]
<trackbot> Created ACTION-48 - Request sparql-features as short name from Thomas R [on Ivan Herman - due 2009-06-30].
chimezie: I haven't been able to review the F&R yet.
AxelPolleres: I think the remaining issues with the F&R document are small.
<AxelPolleres> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-dawg/2009AprJun/0400.html
SteveH_: The CONSTRUCT example is not germane and confusing.
<AndyS> We agreed not to use it last week didn't we?
<SteveH_> I thought so
<SteveH_> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-dawg/2009AprJun/0398.html 2.4.3
SteveH_: In section 2.4.3.
LeeF: I also agree with striking that example.
<AxelPolleres> lternatively, analogously to the SELECT example from before, we can use a subquery with project expressions for this query
<iv_an_ru> (oops)
<SteveH_> http://www.w3.org/2009/sparql/docs/features/#Project_expressions_syntax
<SteveH_> suggestion is to remove first CONSTRUCT example
LeeF: I think including it in the document at this point goes too far.
<AxelPolleres> PROPOSED: remove all below "To return an RDF graph..." in section 2.4.3
<AndyS> Remove just example "CONSTRUCT { ?x foaf:name { fn:string-join(?gn, " ", ?sn) } }
<AndyS> "
<iv_an_ru> I don't like syntax of CONSTRUCT { ?x foaf:name { fn:string-join(?gn, " ", ?sn) } } but I'd keep it.
<iv_an_ru> (we have CONSTRUCT { ?x foaf:name ` fn:string-join(?gn, " ", ?sn) ` } , maybe not the best variant too)
AxelPolleres: We need to remove the offending example and tweak the words to match.
<SteveH_> "To return an RDF graph where the first and family names are concatenated to a full name such project expressions could be used"
<SteveH_> suggestion ^
AxelPolleres: Any objections?
<AxelPolleres> PROPOSED: reword to "To return an RDF graph where the first and family names are concatenated to a full name such project expressions could be used" and remove first COPNSTRUCT example in 2.4.3
<AxelPolleres> RESOLVED: reword to "To return an RDF graph where the first and family names are concatenated to a full name such project expressions could be used" and remove first COPNSTRUCT example in 2.4.3
<AndyS> It is "advice to the editors" isn't it?
<SteveH_> yes
AxelPolleres: We've already taken care of 1 and 2 from the 8 points.
<AxelPolleres> http://esw.w3.org/topic/SPARQL/Extensions/Aggregates
<AndyS> http://www.w3.org/2009/sparql/wiki/Feature:AggregateFunctions#Existing_Implementation.28s.29
AxelPolleres: We should take the list of implementors of aggregate expressions from the ESW wiki.
<AxelPolleres> http://www.w3.org/2009/sparql/wiki/Feature:ProjectExpressions#Existing_Implementation.28s.29
AxelPolleres: Take the existing lists from other pages and paste them into the document.
<AndyS> without the CONSTRUCT case (it's about being concise and focued on select expressions)
Kjetil: What policy should we have for adding implementations? Should we try to be exhaustive?
<AxelPolleres> "The following non-exhaustive list includes some systems addressing this feature"
<LeeF> I share some of Kjetil's concerns
<SteveH> The document will be dated, I don't see the problem
<LeeF> Better to include implementations purely as examples, rather than try to make a comprehensive list
<AndyS> Not exhaustive - but the charter talsk about common extensions and experience which is relevant.
<AndyS> +1 to LeeF
<iv_an_ru> No need to be exaustive, if we're in ;)
<SteveH> yes, not exhastive
<LeeF> what iv_an_ru says is exactly the problem :/
<LeeF> this isn't an Implementation Report
<iv_an_ru> I'd choose two implementations per feature, using "similarity to the spec" as a criterion.
AxelPolleres: Would anyone object to having a non-exhaustive implementation list?
<SteveH> iv_an_ru: there is no spec at this point
KjetilK: I object; I'm concerned about the persistence of the URIs.
<AndyS> Yes
<iv_an_ru> well, what we've specified fo "approximate" syntax and semantics resembles a spec.
<pgearon> I'd like to see the list left
<AxelPolleres> "The following non-exhaustive list includes some systems addressing this feature at the date of publication of the present document"
ivan: The text needs to make it
clear that the implementation list could rapidly become
out-of-date.
... Also, it needs to emphasize that an up-to-date list *is*
maintained on the Wiki.
<SteveH> I don't feel that the document stands on it's own sufficiently if it requires liks to the WG wiki
<SteveH> to justify itsself
<LeeF> Link to which wiki? ESW presumably since it outlives the WG wiki?
<SteveH> +1
<iv_an_ru> +1 for ESW
<SteveH> +1, I also think the docs lifetime is similar to the WGs
AndyS: I think the F&R doc
only has a limited span of usefulness, so I don't worry about
the deep future so much.
... I would put the links in.
<SimonKJ> +1
<AndyS> We are required to have: "shown to exist in multiple, interoperable implementations" so useful info towards that
LukeWM: Do we still need complex use-cases, with more than one feature, for the F&R?
<LukeWM> http://www.w3.org/2009/sparql/wiki/FRUseCases
<LeeF> Pretty sure it wasn't me requesting them :-D
AxelPolleres: Is there any objection to going to FPWD without the list of complex use-cases?
<LukeWM> sorry LeeF, you're right, it wasn't
<AxelPolleres> PROPOSED: go to FPWD without list of use cases
<pgearon> +1
<SteveH> proposal needs rewording!
<LeeF> indeed
<AxelPolleres> RESOLVED: go to FPWD without list of use cases
<pgearon> Yes, I wasn't seconding that we can go to publication, only that I'm happy not to have the use cases
<SteveH> er?
<LeeF> Intent of the previous resolution is to assert that the group does not wish to wait on complex use cases before publishing FPWD, it is NOT a resolution to publish a document.
<SteveH> nor was it a resolution
AxelPolleres: We discussed the modeling of UNSAID without an actual negation feature in SPARQL 1.0 on the mailing list.
SteveH: I think we can continue with the feature described as is.
<AxelPolleres> 4) in my mail, doesn't need a todo.
AxelPolleres: #5 is just a typo.
SteveH: Adding the TODO to address #6 is fine.
AxelPolleres: I suggest no changes to the doc in response to #7.
SimonKJ: We also support a protocol update, and I'll try to dig out a reference.
<SimonKJ> IBM's Jazz Foundation supports graph update via a RESTful protocol
<SimonKJ> I'll try and find a persistent reference
AxelPolleres: I suggest adding
references to these existing implementations to the list for
emphasis.
... Is there anything else that would prevent going to
FPWD?
<SteveH> +1
<SteveH> ..to ivan
ivan: I think we should make all the above changes and then make a decision.
<LeeF> too many changes to do conditionally, I think
<pgearon> I agree with Ivan
<AndyS> It's FPWD - can be a bit rough. Early is good. "It's agree to publish" not "agree with every detail"
LeeF: Let's make the changes, then at the beginning of the next meeting determine if there is any outstanding hesitation.
AxelPolleres: It'll also be good to have outstanding reviews completed.
<SteveH> my action is still open too, for some reason http://www.w3.org/2009/sparql/track/actions/40
AndyS: Make changes and have reviews?
<LeeF> trackbot, close ACTION-40
<trackbot> ACTION-40 Review F&R document closed
<LeeF> SteveH, i don't know what you're talking about
<LeeF> ;-)
<SteveH> LeeF, the human Zakim :)
Axel arranges for serializing the updates and the reviews.
ivan: I need to finalize the
charter for phase 2.
... The charter should include every feature, including the
time permitting features. They don't need detailed
descriptions, though.
<AndyS> See section 1.1?
<LeeF> http://www.w3.org/2009/sparql/docs/features/#Introduction_features
LeeF: I will take an action to draft text for all of the time permitting features by Thursday.
<AxelPolleres> ACTION: LeeF to draft short descriptions for time-permitting features [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2009/06/23-sparql-minutes.html#action05]
<trackbot> Created ACTION-49 - Draft short descriptions for time-permitting features [on Lee Feigenbaum - due 2009-06-30].
AxelPolleres: LeeF can try to hand off his work to KjetilK for his edits.
<LeeF> Thanks for scribing, John. I'll do the minutes from here.
This is scribe.perl Revision: 1.135 of Date: 2009/03/02 03:52:20 Check for newer version at http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2002/scribe/ Guessing input format: RRSAgent_Text_Format (score 1.00) Succeeded: s/???/Ivan/ FAILED: s/???/ivan/ Succeeded: s/ivan/Kjetil/ Succeeded: s/thi nk/think/ Found ScribeNick: John WARNING: No scribe lines found matching ScribeNick pattern: <John> ... Found ScribeNick: john-l Inferring Scribes: John, john-l Scribes: John, john-l ScribeNicks: John, john-l WARNING: No "Topic:" lines found. Default Present: Lee_Feigenbaum, +539149aaaa, kasei, AndyS, bglimm, Ivan, +1.919.663.aabb, AxelPolleres, SimonKJ, Prateek, john-l, SteveH_, LukeWM, +01212803aacc, pgearon, iv_an_ru, KjetilK, Chimezie_Ogbuji Present: Lee_Feigenbaum +539149aaaa kasei AndyS bglimm Ivan +1.919.663.aabb AxelPolleres SimonKJ Prateek john-l SteveH_ LukeWM +01212803aacc pgearon iv_an_ru KjetilK Chimezie_Ogbuji Agenda: http://www.w3.org/2009/sparql/wiki/Agenda-2009-06-23 Found Date: 23 Jun 2009 Guessing minutes URL: http://www.w3.org/2009/06/23-sparql-minutes.html People with action items: herman ivan leef mr. WARNING: No "Topic: ..." lines found! Resulting HTML may have an empty (invalid) <ol>...</ol>. Explanation: "Topic: ..." lines are used to indicate the start of new discussion topics or agenda items, such as: <dbooth> Topic: Review of Amy's report[End of scribe.perl diagnostic output]