SPARQL Working Group Teleconference

Minutes of 21 April 2009

Agenda

http://www.w3.org/2009/sparql/wiki/Agenda-2009-04-21

Present

Axel Polleres, Eric Prud'hommeaux, Andy Seaborne, Steve Harris, Luke Wilson-Mawer, Lee Feigenbaum, John Clark, Simon Schenk, Janne Saarela, Prateek Jain, Greg Williams, Alex Passant, Dave Newman, Kjetil Kjernsmo, Yimin Wang

Regrets

Chime Ogbuji, Bijan Parsia

Chair

Axel Polleres

Scribe

Lee Feigenbaum

IRC Log

Original and Editable Wiki Version

Resolutions

1. Approve minutes at http://www.w3.org/2009/sparql/meeting/2009-04-14 link

Topics

1. Admin

2. Liaisons

3. introduction, Prateek

4. feature survey

5. XML & RDF query serializations

   1. RDF serialization of sparql queries

      initial straw poll gives (+/0-): 1/9/3

   2. XML serialization of queries (SPARQLX)

      initial straw poll gives (+/0-): 4/10/0

6. FunctionLibrary

   initial straw poll gives (+/0-): 8/5/0

7. FullText

   initial straw poll gives (+/0-): 6/5/1

8. LimitPerResource

   initial straw poll gives (+/0-): 4/6/2

9. Basic federated queries

   initial straw poll gives (+/0-): 7/4/2

10. query by reference and parameters

<LeeF> Present: axel, ericp, andys, steve, luke, lee, john-l, simon, janne, prateek, kasei, alex, dnewman2, kjetil, ywang4

13:55:55 <trackbot> Meeting: SPARQL Working Group Teleconference

13:55:56 <trackbot>  Date: 21 April 2009

Trackbot IRC Bot: Date: 21 April 2009 ←

13:56:06 <LeeF> Chair: AxelPolleres

13:56:09 <LeeF> Scribe: LeeF

(Scribe set to Lee Feigenbaum)

13:56:11 <LeeF> Scribenick: LeeF

13:56:26 <LeeF> Agenda: http://www.w3.org/2009/sparql/wiki/Agenda-2009-04-21

13:56:40 <LeeF> Regrets: Chimezie, Bijan

14:02:46 <LeeF> AxelPolleres: plan today is to get through the rest of the features from the wiki and go over Web survey

(No events recorded for 6 minutes)

Axel Polleres: plan today is to get through the rest of the features from the wiki and go over Web survey ←

14:03:05 <LeeF> ... survey will be open for 1.5 weeks or so, to give us an idea of where to go from the F2F topic on

... survey will be open for 1.5 weeks or so, to give us an idea of where to go from the F2F topic on ←

14:03:10 <LeeF> topic: Admin

14:03:23 <LeeF> PROPOSED: Approve minutes at http://www.w3.org/2009/sparql/meeting/2009-04-14

PROPOSED: Approve minutes at http://www.w3.org/2009/sparql/meeting/2009-04-14 ←

14:03:29 <LeeF> RESOLVED: Approve minutes at http://www.w3.org/2009/sparql/meeting/2009-04-14

RESOLVED: Approve minutes at http://www.w3.org/2009/sparql/meeting/2009-04-14 ←

14:03:52 <LeeF> next meeting: one week from today, 28 Apr, will talk about F2F details

next meeting: one week from today, 28 Apr, will talk about F2F details ←

14:04:03 <LeeF> scribe for next meeting: Ivan M

scribe for next meeting: Ivan M ←

14:04:29 <LeeF> topic: Liaisons

14:04:55 <LeeF> AxelPolleres: rdf:text is basically finished, not sure when it will go to Last Call

Axel Polleres: rdf:text is basically finished, not sure when it will go to Last Call ←

14:05:07 <AxelPolleres> http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/wiki/InternationalizedStringSpec

Axel Polleres: http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/wiki/InternationalizedStringSpec ←

14:05:09 <LeeF> ... if we want to review it, it would be great

... if we want to review it, it would be great ←

14:05:13 <AndyS> I volunteer (not exclusively)

Andy Seaborne: I volunteer (not exclusively) ←

14:05:34 <SteveH_> tentative volunteer, but I can't promise

Steve Harris: tentative volunteer, but I can't promise ←

14:05:38 <LeeF> ACTION: AndyS to review rdf:text

ACTION: AndyS to review rdf:text ←

14:05:39 <trackbot> Created ACTION-8 - Review rdf:text [on Andy Seaborne - due 2009-04-28].

Trackbot IRC Bot: Created ACTION-8 - Review rdf:text [on Andy Seaborne - due 2009-04-28]. ←

14:05:44 <LeeF> ACTION: SteveH to try to review rdf:text

ACTION: SteveH to try to review rdf:text ←

14:05:44 <trackbot> Created ACTION-9 - Try to review rdf:text [on Steve Harris - due 2009-04-28].

Trackbot IRC Bot: Created ACTION-9 - Try to review rdf:text [on Steve Harris - due 2009-04-28]. ←

14:05:57 <LeeF> AndyS: there will be substantive issues based on what I've seen

Andy Seaborne: there will be substantive issues based on what I've seen ←

14:06:29 <Zakim> + +656304aacc

Zakim IRC Bot: + +656304aacc ←

14:06:44 <LeeF> zakim, aacc is ywang4

zakim, aacc is ywang4 ←

14:06:44 <Zakim> +ywang4; got it

Zakim IRC Bot: +ywang4; got it ←

14:07:14 <Zakim> +??P39

Zakim IRC Bot: +??P39 ←

14:07:15 <LeeF> AxelPolleres: RIF WG had F2F in Cambridge last week

Axel Polleres: RIF WG had F2F in Cambridge last week ←

14:07:25 <LeeF> ... plan is to go to LC by end of May

... plan is to go to LC by end of May ←

14:07:25 <AlexPassant> Zakim, ??P39 is me

Alex Passant: Zakim, ??P39 is me ←

14:07:25 <Zakim> +AlexPassant; got it

Zakim IRC Bot: +AlexPassant; got it ←

14:07:35 <LeeF> ... will appreciate SPARQL WG reviews then

... will appreciate SPARQL WG reviews then ←

14:07:43 <ericP> Zakim, please dial ericP-office

Eric Prud'hommeaux: Zakim, please dial ericP-office ←

14:07:43 <Zakim> ok, ericP; the call is being made

Zakim IRC Bot: ok, ericP; the call is being made ←

14:07:45 <Zakim> +EricP

Zakim IRC Bot: +EricP ←

14:07:55 <LeeF> q+ to ask about 90 min. teleconference?

q+ to ask about 90 min. teleconference? ←

14:08:43 <LeeF> ericP: HCLS group is doing stuff with federated queries

Eric Prud'hommeaux: HCLS group is doing stuff with federated queries ←

14:10:37 <kjetil> ack LeeF

Kjetil Kjernsmo: ack LeeF ←

14:10:37 <Zakim> LeeF, you wanted to ask about 90 min. teleconference?

Zakim IRC Bot: LeeF, you wanted to ask about 90 min. teleconference? ←

14:10:50 <JanneS> I'll drop out after 60, sorry

Janne Saarela: I'll drop out after 60, sorry ←

14:12:04 <LeeF> topic: introduction, Prateek

14:12:15 <LeeF> PrateekJain-WSU: PhD student at Wright State work wtih Amit Sheth

Prateek Jain: PhD student at Wright State work wtih Amit Sheth ←

14:12:23 <LeeF> ... research is in the area of query rewriting with emphasis on SPARQL

... research is in the area of query rewriting with emphasis on SPARQL ←

14:12:35 <LeeF> ... trying to exploit semantic relationships within a knowledge base to automatically rewrite SPARQL

... trying to exploit semantic relationships within a knowledge base to automatically rewrite SPARQL ←

14:13:13 <LeeF> ... interested in rdf serialization of queries and path queries

... interested in rdf serialization of queries and path queries ←

14:13:44 <LeeF> topic: feature survey

14:13:53 <AxelPolleres> http://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35463/features/

Axel Polleres: http://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35463/features/ ←

14:14:04 <LeeF> AxelPolleres: Each organization can fill out the survey once

Axel Polleres: Each organization can fill out the survey once ←

14:14:26 <LeeF> ...we will probably have around 8 features which we will aim for in the working group

...we will probably have around 8 features which we will aim for in the working group ←

14:14:41 <LeeF> ...the survey lists 31 features that survived the "interested for anyone" criteria

...the survey lists 31 features that survived the "interested for anyone" criteria ←

14:15:08 <LeeF> ...format of the survey was limited by what the WBS survey gave us

...format of the survey was limited by what the WBS survey gave us ←

14:15:44 <LeeF> ...options for each feature are ranks 1 - 31 and "don't mind" and "don't want"

...options for each feature are ranks 1 - 31 and "don't mind" and "don't want" ←

14:15:58 <LeeF> ...do not rank all features

...do not rank all features ←

14:16:06 <LeeF> ...rank up to the first 8 of your choices

...rank up to the first 8 of your choices ←

14:16:13 <AndyS> q+

Andy Seaborne: q+ ←

14:16:19 <LeeF> ack AndyS

ack AndyS ←

14:16:39 <SteveH_> q+

Steve Harris: q+ ←

14:16:55 <LeeF> AndyS: are you going to enforce the limit?

Andy Seaborne: are you going to enforce the limit? ←

14:17:07 <AndyS> ack AndyS

Andy Seaborne: ack AndyS ←

14:17:14 <kjetil> q+

Kjetil Kjernsmo: q+ ←

14:17:24 <LeeF> LeeF: we will ask anyone who ranks more than 8 to adjust their choices to only rank 8

Lee Feigenbaum: we will ask anyone who ranks more than 8 to adjust their choices to only rank 8 ←

14:17:34 <LeeF> ack SteveH_

ack SteveH_ ←

14:18:20 <LeeF> SteveH_: Don't agree with only ranking 8 - if my top 4 don't get done, i don't get to express an opinion about the bottom half of things

Steve Harris: Don't agree with only ranking 8 - if my top 4 don't get done, i don't get to express an opinion about the bottom half of things ←

14:18:38 <LeeF> q+

q+ ←

14:18:52 <LeeF> q+ to say that i'd be happy with ranking more than 8, just not all 31

q+ to say that i'd be happy with ranking more than 8, just not all 31 ←

14:21:01 <kjetil> q+ to ask if the rank algorithm can't account for people ranking all

Kjetil Kjernsmo: q+ to ask if the rank algorithm can't account for people ranking all ←

14:21:20 <kjetil> ack me

Kjetil Kjernsmo: ack me ←

14:21:21 <LeeF> SteveH_: voting shouldn't have any different weight just because you rank 4 vs. ranking 30

Steve Harris: voting shouldn't have any different weight just because you rank 4 vs. ranking 30 ←

14:21:22 <Zakim> kjetil, you wanted to ask if the rank algorithm can't account for people ranking all

Zakim IRC Bot: kjetil, you wanted to ask if the rank algorithm can't account for people ranking all ←

14:21:23 <Zakim> +dnewman2

Zakim IRC Bot: +dnewman2 ←

14:21:26 <LeeF> q-

q- ←

14:21:46 <LeeF> kjetil: if we use ranking algorithm, people can rank as many as they which

Kjetil Kjernsmo: if we use ranking algorithm, people can rank as many as they which ←

14:23:24 <AndyS> q+

Andy Seaborne: q+ ←

14:24:32 <john-l> I prefer using a ranking algorithm.

John Clark: I prefer using a ranking algorithm. ←

14:25:21 <LeeF> LeeF: I was concerned that organizations interested in 25 features should not be able to cast 'more' votes and influence things more than someone who casts less

Lee Feigenbaum: I was concerned that organizations interested in 25 features should not be able to cast 'more' votes and influence things more than someone who casts less ←

14:25:29 <LeeF> AndyS: Concerned that everyone be playing by the same rules

Andy Seaborne: Concerned that everyone be playing by the same rules ←

14:25:48 <LeeF> AxelPolleres: i think if we use a threshold like 12 or so we can compromise

Axel Polleres: i think if we use a threshold like 12 or so we can compromise ←

14:25:52 <SteveH_> LeeF, things like Condorcet don't give any advantage to ballot stuffers

Steve Harris: LeeF, things like Condorcet don't give any advantage to ballot stuffers ←

14:27:11 <kjetil> Here's a site we can use for the final ballot: http://www.cs.cornell.edu/andru/civs.html

Kjetil Kjernsmo: Here's a site we can use for the final ballot: http://www.cs.cornell.edu/andru/civs.html ←

14:27:25 <john-l> I propose that we have every organization rank ALL of the features, and then use a Condorcet system to eliminate all but 8-12 winners.

John Clark: I propose that we have every organization rank ALL of the features, and then use a Condorcet system to eliminate all but 8-12 winners. ←

14:27:35 <SteveH_> or, alternative: http://plugin.org.uk/rdf/condorcet/

Steve Harris: or, alternative: http://plugin.org.uk/rdf/condorcet/ ←

14:28:36 <LeeF> LeeF: I'm not comfortable at all with approving a specific ranking to drive things forwards

Lee Feigenbaum: I'm not comfortable at all with approving a specific ranking to drive things forwards ←

14:29:10 <SteveH_> we don't need the threashold

Steve Harris: we don't need the threashold ←

14:29:21 <LeeF> q?

q? ←

14:29:29 <AndyS> ack me

Andy Seaborne: ack me ←

14:29:56 <LeeF> SteveH_: with condorcet you're only voting against yourself

Steve Harris: with condorcet you're only voting against yourself ←

14:30:25 <LeeF> ... rank the features you want in the order you'd like them and then we can analyze the data

... rank the features you want in the order you'd like them and then we can analyze the data ←

14:30:48 <kasei> hearing lots of interference on kjetil(?)

Greg Williams: hearing lots of interference on kjetil(?) ←

14:31:29 <SteveH_> for ref. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Condorcet_Method

Steve Harris: for ref. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Condorcet_Method ←

14:32:15 <ericP> no tactical voting? i quit!

Eric Prud'hommeaux: no tactical voting? i quit! ←

14:32:30 <LeeF> SteveH_: with Condorcet there's no advantage at all to ranking fewer or more choices, nor to ranking two things the same

Steve Harris: with Condorcet there's no advantage at all to ranking fewer or more choices, nor to ranking two things the same ←

14:32:43 <LeeF> kjetil: it's just about the relative preference

Kjetil Kjernsmo: it's just about the relative preference ←

14:34:45 <LeeF> LeeF: it's important to me that "all 1 votes" doesn't mean "everything is super important!" but instead "i don't care which of these we do, they're all equally important" - it sounds like people are on the same page about that

Lee Feigenbaum: it's important to me that "all 1 votes" doesn't mean "everything is super important!" but instead "i don't care which of these we do, they're all equally important" - it sounds like people are on the same page about that ←

14:35:02 <LeeF> AxelPolleres: suggested deadline for filling out the survey is May 1

Axel Polleres: suggested deadline for filling out the survey is May 1 ←

14:35:11 <kjetil> Zakim, mute me

Kjetil Kjernsmo: Zakim, mute me ←

14:35:11 <Zakim> kjetil should now be muted

Zakim IRC Bot: kjetil should now be muted ←

14:35:18 <JanneS> the vote page has April-28 set as the deadline

Janne Saarela: the vote page has April-28 set as the deadline ←

14:35:27 <ericP> i would like to propose a new voting scheme

Eric Prud'hommeaux: i would like to propose a new voting scheme ←

14:35:32 <ericP> it uses parameterized owl entailment

Eric Prud'hommeaux: it uses parameterized owl entailment ←

14:35:49 <LeeF> LeeF: encourages everyone to fill out the survey as soon as you feel ready to

Lee Feigenbaum: encourages everyone to fill out the survey as soon as you feel ready to ←

<LeeF> Topic: XML & RDF query serializations

14:36:22 <LeeF> -> http://www.w3.org/2009/sparql/wiki/SPARQLX

-> http://www.w3.org/2009/sparql/wiki/SPARQLX ←

14:37:48 <AxelPolleres> strawman from bijan: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-dawg/2009AprJun/0089.html

Axel Polleres: strawman from bijan: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-dawg/2009AprJun/0089.html ←

14:38:14 <ericP> q+ to say i've had people use an XML expression of queries

Eric Prud'hommeaux: q+ to say i've had people use an XML expression of queries ←

14:38:15 <AndyS> That is SPARQL algebra in XML , not SPARQL AST

Andy Seaborne: That is SPARQL algebra in XML , not SPARQL AST ←

14:38:38 <LeeF> ericP: i've had people use XML version of queries for debugging in conjuncgtion with XSLT, can see some use of it

Eric Prud'hommeaux: i've had people use XML version of queries for debugging in conjuncgtion with XSLT, can see some use of it ←

14:39:20 <LeeF> AndyS: abstract syntax need  to be formally addressed if we do pragmas

Andy Seaborne: abstract syntax need to be formally addressed if we do pragmas ←

14:39:24 <JanneS> http://www.w3.org/2009/sparql/wiki/Feature:Pragmas

Janne Saarela: http://www.w3.org/2009/sparql/wiki/Feature:Pragmas ←

14:40:28 <LeeF> AndyS: TopQuadrant uses an RDF serialization to store queries

Andy Seaborne: TopQuadrant uses an RDF serialization to store queries ←

14:40:46 <ericP> +1 to two

Eric Prud'hommeaux: +1 to two ←

14:41:01 <SimonS> +1 on two

Simon Schenk: +1 on two ←

14:41:14 <ericP> i'm 0 on XML and -1 on RDF ('cause it's so concentious)

Eric Prud'hommeaux: i'm 0 on XML and -1 on RDF ('cause it's so concentious) ←

14:41:15 <AndyS> My requirement is to get the abstraction right and do XML, JSON, another

Andy Seaborne: My requirement is to get the abstraction right and do XML, JSON, another ←

14:42:09 <SimonS> +q

Simon Schenk: +q ←

14:42:17 <LeeF> ack ericP

ack ericP ←

14:42:17 <Zakim> ericP, you wanted to say i've had people use an XML expression of queries

Zakim IRC Bot: ericP, you wanted to say i've had people use an XML expression of queries ←

14:42:30 <LeeF> ack SimonS

ack SimonS ←

14:42:39 <LeeF> Prateek: we are looking at SPIN for some of our work

Prateek Jain: we are looking at SPIN for some of our work ←

14:42:44 <ericP> q+ to warn of contentious issues

Eric Prud'hommeaux: q+ to warn of contentious issues ←

14:42:55 <LeeF> SimonS: can see use cases for RDF serialization of SPARQL, don't have any use cases for XML

Simon Schenk: can see use cases for RDF serialization of SPARQL, don't have any use cases for XML ←

14:43:25 <JanneS> was the motivation to query sparql via sparql?

Janne Saarela: was the motivation to query sparql via sparql? ←

14:43:49 <LeeF> ericP: i've seen this be contentious before - in particular the expression of a graph pattern in RDF - difficult space to work in

Eric Prud'hommeaux: i've seen this be contentious before - in particular the expression of a graph pattern in RDF - difficult space to work in ←

14:43:53 <LeeF> q?

q? ←

14:43:55 <LeeF> ack ericP

ack ericP ←

14:43:55 <Zakim> ericP, you wanted to warn of contentious issues

Zakim IRC Bot: ericP, you wanted to warn of contentious issues ←

14:43:56 <SimonS> kind of. Rather composing SPARQL queries at runtime from RDF data

Simon Schenk: kind of. Rather composing SPARQL queries at runtime from RDF data ←

14:44:00 <ericP> q-

Eric Prud'hommeaux: q- ←

14:44:32 <ericP>  upshot: whatever we do, we don't want people expressing their data in RDF

Eric Prud'hommeaux: upshot: whatever we do, we don't want people expressing their data in RDF ←

<LeeF> subtopic: RDF serialization of sparql queries

<LeeF> summary: initial straw poll gives (+/0-): 1/9/3

14:45:00 <LeeF> AxelPolleres: straw poll on RDF serialization of SPARQL queries

14:45:01 <ericP> -1

14:45:02 <SteveH_> -1, it's a minefield

14:45:03 <AndyS> 0

14:45:03 <kjetil> 0

14:45:04 <PrateekJain-WSU> +1

14:45:05 <LukeWM> -1

14:45:05 <JanneS> sounds like closure to the extreme i.e. sparql query result could be a valid sparql query

14:45:07 <LeeF> 0

14:45:07 <john-l> 0

14:45:08 <AlexPassant> 0

14:45:09 <kasei> 0

14:45:09 <JanneS> 0

14:45:09 <AxelPolleres> 0

14:45:12 <SimonS> 0 would be nice, but difficult

<LeeF> subtopic: XML serialization of queries (SPARQLX)

<LeeF> summary: initial straw poll gives (+/0-): 4/10/0

14:45:39 <LeeF> AxelPolleres: straw poll on XML serialization of SPARQL queries

14:45:48 <john-l> +1

14:45:49 <AndyS> 0

14:45:50 <LukeWM> 0

14:45:51 <LeeF> 0

14:45:52 <SteveH_> 0, could be useful, but not huge usecases for us

14:45:52 <PrateekJain-WSU> +1

14:45:53 <ericP> 0

14:45:55 <JanneS> 0

14:45:56 <AxelPolleres> 0

14:45:56 <kasei> +1

14:45:58 <SimonS> -0

14:45:58 <kjetil> 0

14:46:00 <AlexPassant> 0

14:46:12 <LeeF> bijan is a +1 by proxy, I'm positive

14:47:32 <LeeF> topic: FunctionLibrary

<LeeF> summary: initial straw poll gives (+/0-): 8/5/0

14:47:37 <LeeF> -> http://www.w3.org/2009/sparql/wiki/Feature:FunctionLibrary

14:48:24 <AxelPolleres> Related here http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wiki/DTB

14:48:51 <AxelPolleres> http://www.w3.org/TR/xpath-functions/

14:49:03 <AxelPolleres> http://jena.sourceforge.net/ARQ/library-function.html

14:49:31 <ericP> q+ to talk about existing extensibility

14:50:05 <LeeF> LeeF: this feature is about spending the working group's time expanding the core set of functions that query writers can expect to be interoperable between implementations

14:50:21 <LeeF> ericP: we did spend some time testing last time to make sure that extension functions work in a sane way

14:50:23 <SteveH_> +1 to ericP

14:50:41 <AndyS> Significant value.  Reuse F&O where possible.  Fix a set of functions expected everywhere - not too large to ensure universal coverage.

14:50:56 <SteveH_> +1 to AndyS too

14:52:22 <LeeF> AxelPolleres: the question here is whether the WG should expand the list of built-in functions

14:53:04 <LeeF> AxelPolleres: straw poll on working on extending function library

14:53:12 <AxelPolleres> 0

14:53:13 <SteveH_> +1

14:53:14 <kjetil> +1

14:53:14 <LeeF> =1

14:53:15 <kasei> +1 but low priority

14:53:16 <john-l> 0

14:53:17 <JanneS> +1

14:53:17 <LeeF> +1 even

14:53:17 <PrateekJain-WSU> +1

14:53:18 <ericP> 0

14:53:20 <SimonS> 0

14:53:23 <AndyS> +1

14:53:29 <LukeWM> +1

14:53:30 <AlexPassant> 0

14:53:46 <kjetil> (but yeah, at the end)

14:53:49 <AndyS> http://www.w3.org/2009/sparql/wiki/Feature:CreatingIrisAndLiterals

14:53:50 <LeeF> topic: FullText

<LeeF> summary: initial straw poll gives (+/0-): 6/5/1

14:53:58 <kjetil> Zakim, unmute me

14:53:58 <Zakim> kjetil should no longer be muted

14:54:22 <AxelPolleres> http://www.w3.org/2009/sparql/wiki/Feature:FullText

14:54:43 <LeeF> kjetil: most Web sites have search boxes... if you want to use a triple store for an application and SPARQL on top of that

14:54:51 <LeeF> ... you need someway to communicate a search down to SPARQL endpoint

14:54:56 <LeeF> s/someway/some way

14:55:10 <LeeF> ... we could standardize in several ways here

14:55:34 <LeeF> ... could have a function in function library

14:55:54 <LeeF> ... could also use xpath/xquery text functions

14:56:03 <SteveH_> q+ to ask about XPath fulltext v's regex

14:56:05 <LeeF> ... users might want to search more than just one literal

14:56:19 <AndyS> q+ to talke about XQ full text

14:56:20 <LeeF> q+ to ask about xpath compared with lucene and to note potential contention

14:56:25 <AxelPolleres> q+ to ask about redundancy wrt regex

14:56:30 <AndyS> q+ to say it's not a library function

14:56:37 <ericP> q-

14:56:39 <LeeF> kjetil: lots of possibilities but think this is important for interoperability

14:57:08 <LeeF> SteveH_: I read the xpath full text specification - more complicated than I thought it would be

14:57:12 <ericP> -> http://www.w3.org/TR/2008/CR-xpath-full-text-10-20080516/#section-ftcontainsexpr-examples xpath full text examples

14:57:38 <LeeF> ... this is more complex than just referring to xpath spec, because there's a lot there that is xpath-specific

14:57:49 <LeeF> ... on the other end of a scale, LIKE syntax is just syntactic sugar over regex

14:58:07 <AndyS> SteveH_: similarity to LIKE

14:58:26 <LeeF> ... would need to understand what we're talking about - the LIKE syntax is easy to standardize, full text feature will be a lot of work just to figure out what parts of the XPath full text doc are relevant and which aren't

14:58:40 <ericP> http://www.w3.org/2009/sparql/wiki/Feature:FullText doesn't mention regex

14:58:52 <ericP> what uses cases does regex not support?

14:58:57 <LeeF> kjetil: Virtuoso feels that it is harder to implement regular expressions than full text

14:59:01 <SteveH_> ericP, stemming for one

14:59:15 <LeeF> AndyS: i think XQuery full text is too big, too complicated

14:59:24 <LeeF> ... it's important to ensure that existing tools, not just lucene, can be used

14:59:38 <LeeF> q?

14:59:39 <LeeF> ack SteveH_

14:59:40 <Zakim> SteveH_, you wanted to ask about XPath fulltext v's regex

14:59:41 <LeeF> ack AndyS

14:59:41 <Zakim> AndyS, you wanted to talke about XQ full text and to say it's not a library function

14:59:58 <LeeF> AndyS: this is not just a library function - it's not a restriction, since it's generative from an index

15:00:06 <LeeF> ... "find me all the things that match 'x'"

15:00:17 <LeeF> ... "find me all the URIs of documents that contain the following string"

15:00:53 <LeeF> ... concerned that scripting engines end up with a real burden to implement this

15:00:56 <SteveH_> not just smaller implementations, the only impl. of XPath fulltext i've seen is huge

15:00:56 <LeeF> ack LeeF

15:00:56 <Zakim> LeeF, you wanted to ask about xpath compared with lucene and to note potential contention

15:01:11 <ericP> the scripting people can be incomplete. doesn't really matter except for bragging rights

15:01:56 <kasei> ericP: it matters for portability between scripting and the bigger impls.

15:02:42 <ericP> kasei, i think that's an argument for then being sound, but not complete

15:03:29 <kjetil> q+

15:03:34 <SimonS> q+ to say most existing implementations seem quite similar

15:03:48 <ericP> i was arguing that if the burden of implementation keeps some scripts from being complete, that's not a big cost. however, we'd like to see them interoperate even in their subsets

15:03:59 <LeeF> LeeF: i see a strong case for interoperability here, but also see a huge amount of work to standardize this well

15:04:15 <LeeF> AndyS: there are other things to consider as well, such as scoring of results

15:04:21 <SteveH_> I don't want to see a world where we end up just standardising lucene syntax

15:04:32 <LeeF> AxelPolleres: seems that xpath/xquery might be too heavy for us, as opposed to aligning what existing implementations do

15:04:45 <ericP> q+ to ask if lucene is a strict subset of xpath:ftcontains

15:04:46 <AndyS> ack to SteveH_ -- starting point only

15:05:12 <SteveH_> ericP, it's not no

15:05:25 <LeeF> q?

15:05:31 <LeeF> ack AxelPolleres

15:05:31 <Zakim> AxelPolleres, you wanted to ask about redundancy wrt regex

15:05:33 <LeeF> ack kjetil

15:06:08 <ericP> we'll have a hell of a fight if we want to standardize a non-xpath function if there's an xpath function nearby

15:06:10 <AndyS> Maybe good to add some clear syntax to make it easier to understand for query writers

15:06:17 <JanneS> (I need to leave, will be voting -1 for the full fledged proposal with XQuery and XPath Full Text 1.0, +1 if we add some syntactic sugar to ease interoperability with Lucene type of implementations)

15:06:25 <ericP> burden will be on us to prove that it's not covered by subsetting ftcontains

15:06:44 <AxelPolleres> q-

15:07:12 <LeeF> SimonS: most implementations I know are very close to or based on Lucene - that seems to be what people want

15:07:17 <LeeF> ... syntax extensions are similar as well

15:07:25 <SteveH_> or, what implemetors found it easiest to build

15:07:29 <JanneS> (uh, BasicFederatedQuery deserves the protocol extensions is my +1 for both, no comment on LimitPerResource yet) - bye

15:07:56 <Zakim> -JanneS

15:08:29 <LeeF> ericP: I think that if we try to standardize something analogous to an XQuery function (e.g. lucene:contains) then we will need to prove to the world & XQuery WG that we were not able to subset ft:contains to meet our needs

15:09:18 <Zakim> -ywang4

15:09:24 <LeeF> AndyS: to be pragmatic, i don't want to put an xquery parser inside my sparql impl

15:09:36 <ywang4> see you next time :)

15:10:02 <LeeF> SteveH_: it would be tough to separate e.g. how it refers to rdf literals rather than xml nodes

15:10:38 <AndyS> --> http://www.w3.org/TR/xpath-full-text-10/#id-grammar

15:10:39 <LeeF> AxelPolleres: straw poll on full text

15:10:45 <AxelPolleres> q?

15:10:47 <ericP> q-

15:10:48 <LeeF> ack SimonS

15:10:49 <Zakim> SimonS, you wanted to say most existing implementations seem quite similar

15:10:49 <LeeF> ack ericP

15:10:56 <SimonS> q-

15:11:00 <kjetil> +1

15:11:01 <ericP> 0

15:11:02 <SteveH_> 0

15:11:04 <AndyS> +1

15:11:08 <kasei> -1

15:11:08 <AxelPolleres> 0

15:11:10 <john-l> +1

15:11:10 <AlexPassant> +1

15:11:11 <PrateekJain-WSU> 0

15:11:11 <SimonS> +1

15:11:13 <LukeWM> +1

15:11:17 <LeeF> 0, against my better judgment which says +1

15:11:21 <ericP> nice

15:11:56 <ericP> i'm surprised. usally "better judgement" is aligned with discresion

15:11:58 <LeeF> topic: LimitPerResource

<LeeF> summary: initial straw poll gives (+/0-): 4/6/2

15:12:28 <AlexPassant> http://www.w3.org/2009/sparql/wiki/Feature:LimitPerResource

15:13:12 <LeeF> AlexPassant: proposal is to find a way to limit solutions not by tuples but by distinct instances of a resource

15:13:19 <LeeF> ... example syntax on wiki page

15:13:42 <kjetil> q+

15:13:49 <LeeF> ack kjetil

15:13:56 <LeeF> kjetil: this is the single most important feature for us

15:14:08 <LeeF> q+ to ask about relationship with subselect

15:14:25 <AxelPolleres> q+ on whether thisis an issue for surface syntax

15:14:29 <LeeF> kjetil: you don't know in advance how many rows you expect back

15:15:09 <AxelPolleres> q-

15:15:15 <SteveH_> q+

15:15:30 <LeeF> LeeF: is it true that if sparql has subselects then limitperresource is syntactic sugar?

15:15:39 <LeeF> SteveH_: you also need grouping/limiting operations

15:16:25 <LeeF> ... in other cases besides http://www.w3.org/2009/sparql/wiki/Feature:LimitPerResource#Related_Use_Cases.2FExtensions you need a grouping operator

15:16:40 <LeeF> AxelPolleres: Alex & Kjetil would you be happy if this was subsumed by subselect?

15:16:48 <LeeF> kjetil: yes, if we do subselect

15:16:57 <AxelPolleres> let's do a strawpoll conditional to subselects

15:16:58 <LeeF> AlexPassant: yes, it's the capability itself that is important

15:17:14 <ericP> 0

15:17:16 <kjetil> +1

15:17:18 <AlexPassant> +1

15:17:18 <kasei> +1

15:17:19 <LeeF> AxelPolleres: straw poll - would you want LimitPerResource GIVEN that we do not do subselects

15:17:20 <AndyS> -1

15:17:21 <john-l> +1

15:17:21 <AxelPolleres> 0

15:17:22 <SteveH_> -1

15:17:25 <LeeF> 0

15:17:26 <LukeWM> 0

15:17:28 <PrateekJain-WSU> 0

15:17:31 <SimonS> 0

15:17:38 <SteveH_> [but we do do this a lot, but doing it without subselects would be crazy]

15:17:55 <LeeF> topic: Basic federated queries

<LeeF> summary: initial straw poll gives (+/0-): 7/4/2

15:17:59 <kjetil> Zakim, mute me

15:17:59 <Zakim> kjetil should now be muted

15:18:03 <LeeF> http://www.w3.org/2009/sparql/wiki/Feature:BasicFederatedQuery

15:18:12 <LeeF> AndyS: goal is to find minimal features needed to make federation happen

15:19:01 <LeeF> ... what's the minimal needed for one sparql endpoint to call out to another to get some results back

15:19:24 <LeeF> ... related thing for sending CONSTRUCT query to another processor as part of the FROM clause to get data in - can do that now with long URLs

15:19:43 <LeeF> ... very related to query parameters

15:19:49 <LeeF> ... very related to subqueries

15:19:54 <ericP> q+ to say that he added the encode-this-and-append-to-graph-url functionality on the command line

15:20:01 <LeeF> ack LeeF

15:20:01 <Zakim> LeeF, you wanted to ask about relationship with subselect

15:20:06 <LeeF> ack SteveH_

15:20:26 <LeeF> AndyS: overall task in federated query is to find the right place to get a certain piece of information

15:20:52 <LeeF> ... missing piece is the ability to actually make the call to a remote service, that's the minimum required piece

15:21:22 <LeeF> ... ARQ does with SERVICE keyword, Virtuoso does it with pragma attached to subselect - mechanism less important than the feature

15:21:22 <AxelPolleres> Axel: syntax to "execute federated query plans, yes?

15:21:38 <LeeF> ack ericP

15:21:38 <Zakim> ericP, you wanted to say that he added the encode-this-and-append-to-graph-url functionality on the command line

15:21:39 <ericP> ack me

15:21:39 <SimonS> q+ to say he does this using special named graphs

15:22:21 <LeeF> ericP: HCLS group does a lot of query federation using my command line stuff

15:22:31 <LeeF> ... useful but not top priority

15:22:43 <LeeF> SimonS: we define special named graphs that are evaluated remotely and then do subqueries against one or more remote endpoints

15:22:46 <LeeF> ... a lot of people use it

15:23:39 <LeeF> q?

15:23:40 <LeeF> ack SimonS

15:23:40 <Zakim> SimonS, you wanted to say he does this using special named graphs

15:23:47 <LeeF> AxelPolleres: straw poll on basic federated query

15:23:48 <SimonS> q-

15:23:49 <kasei> +1

15:23:50 <kjetil> +1

15:23:51 <LukeWM> -1

15:23:51 <SteveH_> 0, useful, but very very scary

15:23:51 <AndyS> +1

15:23:51 <ericP> +1

15:23:53 <SimonS> +1

15:23:54 <john-l> -1

15:23:55 <PrateekJain-WSU> +1

15:23:55 <AlexPassant> 0

15:23:56 <LeeF> 0

15:23:59 <AxelPolleres> 0

15:24:50 <ericP> john-l, i'm curious about your -1. issue of priorities, or serious concearns?

15:25:02 <LeeF> ericP, you're not concerned about Luke's -1?

15:25:16 <john-l> ericP, Just priorities.

15:25:27 <ericP> and LukeWM?

15:25:49 <LeeF> topic: query by reference and parameters

15:25:58 <LeeF> AxelPolleres: doesn't parameters need query by reference?

15:26:06 <ericP> LeeF, shoudl i talk about SPARQLfed grammar?

15:26:11 <LeeF> SimonS: Parameters are useful without query by reference, for example for distributed joins

15:26:49 <LukeWM> ericP, my -1 was because I've just not come across any use cases for it day to day

15:27:00 <ericP> roger

15:27:03 <ericP> tx

15:28:02 <LeeF> LeeF: query by ref might depend on parameters but not vice versa - params got some support, query by ref got no support (no +1s)

15:28:21 <LeeF> SteveH_: are you going to change the survey to not say "make 8 votes"?

15:28:41 <LeeF> AxelPolleres: yes, I will change the text to not be restricted to 8 votes

15:29:04 <LeeF> AxelPolleres: AOB?

15:29:14 <LeeF> Adjourned.