13:46:26 <RRSAgent> logging to http://www.w3.org/2010/10/26-sparql-irc
RRSAgent IRC Bot: logging to http://www.w3.org/2010/10/26-sparql-irc ←
13:46:42 <AxelPolleres> Zakim, this will be sparql
Axel Polleres: Zakim, this will be sparql ←
13:46:43 <Zakim> ok, AxelPolleres; I see SW_(SPARQL)10:00AM scheduled to start in 14 minutes
Zakim IRC Bot: ok, AxelPolleres; I see SW_(SPARQL)10:00AM scheduled to start in 14 minutes ←
13:47:15 <sandro> my regrets, alas. :-(
Sandro Hawke: my regrets, alas. :-( ←
13:47:19 <AxelPolleres> agenda+ SELECT *
Axel Polleres: agenda+ SELECT * ←
13:47:33 <AxelPolleres> agenda- SELECT *
Axel Polleres: agenda- SELECT * ←
13:47:45 <AxelPolleres> doesn't work it seems ;-)
Axel Polleres: doesn't work it seems ;-) ←
13:47:54 <AxelPolleres> agenda+ admin
Axel Polleres: agenda+ admin ←
13:48:14 <AxelPolleres> agenda+ aggregates issues
Axel Polleres: agenda+ aggregates issues ←
13:48:31 <AxelPolleres> agenda+ potentially bound/SELECT*
Axel Polleres: agenda+ potentially bound/SELECT* ←
13:48:59 <AxelPolleres> agenda+ test case approval
Axel Polleres: agenda+ test case approval ←
13:49:02 <AxelPolleres> agenda?
Axel Polleres: agenda? ←
13:49:33 <AxelPolleres> item- 1
Axel Polleres: item- 1 ←
13:49:58 <AxelPolleres> agenda?
Axel Polleres: agenda? ←
13:50:14 <AxelPolleres> remove agendum 1
Axel Polleres: remove agendum 1 ←
13:50:19 <AxelPolleres> agenda?
Axel Polleres: agenda? ←
13:53:43 <AxelPolleres> chair: Axel Polleres
13:54:00 <AxelPolleres> regrets: Andy Seaborne
13:54:42 <AxelPolleres> agenda: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-dawg/2010OctDec/0156.html
13:54:56 <Zakim> SW_(SPARQL)10:00AM has now started
Zakim IRC Bot: SW_(SPARQL)10:00AM has now started ←
13:55:00 <Zakim> SW_(SPARQL)10:00AM has ended
Zakim IRC Bot: SW_(SPARQL)10:00AM has ended ←
13:55:02 <Zakim> Attendees were
Zakim IRC Bot: Attendees were ←
13:55:09 <AxelPolleres> alex, can you scribe?
Axel Polleres: alex, can you scribe? ←
13:55:45 <AxelPolleres> Zaki, are you ok?!?
Axel Polleres: Zaki, are you ok?!? ←
13:56:09 <AxelPolleres> Zakim, you start end end our meeting 5min in advance... strange...
Axel Polleres: Zakim, you start end end our meeting 5min in advance... strange... ←
13:56:09 <Zakim> I don't understand you, AxelPolleres
Zakim IRC Bot: I don't understand you, AxelPolleres ←
13:56:30 <Zakim> SW_(SPARQL)10:00AM has now started
Zakim IRC Bot: SW_(SPARQL)10:00AM has now started ←
13:56:38 <Zakim> + +49.911.973.4.aaaa
Zakim IRC Bot: + +49.911.973.4.aaaa ←
13:56:39 <Zakim> +??P1
Zakim IRC Bot: +??P1 ←
13:56:53 <NickH> Zakim, ??P1 is me
Nicholas Humfrey: Zakim, ??P1 is me ←
13:56:53 <Zakim> +NickH; got it
Zakim IRC Bot: +NickH; got it ←
13:57:12 <NickH> not a lot of people here?
Nicholas Humfrey: not a lot of people here? ←
13:57:20 <NicoM> Zakim, +49 is me
Nico Michaelis: Zakim, +49 is me ←
13:57:20 <Zakim> +NicoM; got it
Zakim IRC Bot: +NicoM; got it ←
13:58:28 <Zakim> +AxelPolleres
Zakim IRC Bot: +AxelPolleres ←
13:58:49 <AxelPolleres> Zakim, who is on the phone?
Axel Polleres: Zakim, who is on the phone? ←
13:58:51 <Zakim> On the phone I see NicoM, NickH, AxelPolleres
Zakim IRC Bot: On the phone I see NicoM, NickH, AxelPolleres ←
13:58:55 <Zakim> +kasei
Zakim IRC Bot: +kasei ←
13:59:01 <Zakim> +OlivierCorby
Zakim IRC Bot: +OlivierCorby ←
13:59:13 <kasei> Zakim, mute me
Gregory Williams: Zakim, mute me ←
13:59:19 <Zakim> kasei should now be muted
Zakim IRC Bot: kasei should now be muted ←
13:59:44 <Zakim> +??P24
Zakim IRC Bot: +??P24 ←
14:00:15 <cbuilara> zaki, Zakim ??P24 is me
Carlos Buil Aranda: zaki, Zakim ??P24 is me ←
14:00:28 <Zakim> +MattPerry
Zakim IRC Bot: +MattPerry ←
14:00:29 <cbuilara> Zakim ??P24 is me
Carlos Buil Aranda: Zakim ??P24 is me ←
14:00:38 <cbuilara> Zakim, ??P24 is me
Carlos Buil Aranda: Zakim, ??P24 is me ←
14:00:38 <Zakim> +cbuilara; got it
Zakim IRC Bot: +cbuilara; got it ←
14:00:41 <AxelPolleres> let's wait for 1-2 min for people to join still
Axel Polleres: let's wait for 1-2 min for people to join still ←
14:00:55 <Zakim> +??P27
Zakim IRC Bot: +??P27 ←
14:01:04 <SteveH> Zakim, ??P27 is me
Steve Harris: Zakim, ??P27 is me ←
14:01:04 <Zakim> +SteveH; got it
Zakim IRC Bot: +SteveH; got it ←
14:01:07 <pgearon> dialing in now....
Paul Gearon: dialing in now.... ←
14:01:22 <AxelPolleres> Zakim, who is on the phone?
Axel Polleres: Zakim, who is on the phone? ←
14:01:23 <Zakim> On the phone I see NicoM, NickH, AxelPolleres, kasei (muted), OlivierCorby, cbuilara, MattPerry, SteveH
Zakim IRC Bot: On the phone I see NicoM, NickH, AxelPolleres, kasei (muted), OlivierCorby, cbuilara, MattPerry, SteveH ←
14:01:26 <SteveH> out of UK lines, again :(
Steve Harris: out of UK lines, again :( ←
14:01:40 <AxelPolleres> still only one UK line?
Axel Polleres: still only one UK line? ←
14:01:47 <Zakim> +pgearon
Zakim IRC Bot: +pgearon ←
14:01:48 <SteveH> dunno, not enough
Steve Harris: dunno, not enough ←
14:01:50 <AxelPolleres> ivan, sandro?
Axel Polleres: ivan, sandro? ←
14:03:17 <AxelPolleres> Zakim, who is on the phone?
Axel Polleres: Zakim, who is on the phone? ←
14:03:17 <Zakim> On the phone I see NicoM, NickH, AxelPolleres, kasei (muted), OlivierCorby, cbuilara, MattPerry, SteveH, pgearon
Zakim IRC Bot: On the phone I see NicoM, NickH, AxelPolleres, kasei (muted), OlivierCorby, cbuilara, MattPerry, SteveH, pgearon ←
14:03:56 <SteveH> bglimm, there's no UK lines :(
Steve Harris: bglimm, there's no UK lines :( ←
14:04:27 <AxelPolleres> scribe: paul gearon
(Scribe set to Paul Gearon)
14:05:02 <AxelPolleres> next agendum
Axel Polleres: next agendum ←
14:05:04 <pgearon> AxelPolleres: same agenda as from last week
Axel Polleres: same agenda as from last week ←
14:05:15 <ivan> zakim, dial ivan-voip
Ivan Herman: zakim, dial ivan-voip ←
14:05:15 <Zakim> ok, ivan; the call is being made
Zakim IRC Bot: ok, ivan; the call is being made ←
14:05:17 <Zakim> +Ivan
Zakim IRC Bot: +Ivan ←
14:06:04 <AxelPolleres> PROPOSED: Approve minutes at http://www.w3.org/2009/sparql/meeting/2010-10-19
PROPOSED: Approve minutes at http://www.w3.org/2009/sparql/meeting/2010-10-19 ←
14:06:46 <AxelPolleres> RESOLVED: Approve minutes at http://www.w3.org/2009/sparql/meeting/2010-10-19
RESOLVED: Approve minutes at http://www.w3.org/2009/sparql/meeting/2010-10-19 ←
14:07:16 <AxelPolleres> ivan: w3.org has problems... some attack
Ivan Herman: w3.org has problems... some attack [ Scribe Assist by Axel Polleres ] ←
14:07:39 <bglimm> Yes, but it is always my private money. The university should pay for that!
Birte Glimm: Yes, but it is always my private money. The university should pay for that! ←
14:07:44 <pgearon> AxelPolleres: next regular meeting 2nd November
Axel Polleres: next regular meeting 2nd November ←
14:07:46 <AxelPolleres> Next regular meeting: 2010-11-02 @ 15:00 UK / 10:00 EDT (scribe: Alex Passant)
Axel Polleres: Next regular meeting: 2010-11-02 @ 15:00 UK / 10:00 EDT (scribe: Alex Passant) ←
14:08:12 <AxelPolleres> next agendum
Axel Polleres: next agendum ←
14:08:39 <AxelPolleres> topic: aggregate issues
14:08:39 <AxelPolleres> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-dawg/2010OctDec/0040.html
Axel Polleres: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-dawg/2010OctDec/0040.html ←
14:08:43 <pgearon> AxelPolleres: some mail exchanged, mainly answered by Steve and Andy about how to deal with unbounds and aggregates
Axel Polleres: some mail exchanged, mainly answered by Steve and Andy about how to deal with unbounds and aggregates ←
14:09:02 <Zakim> +bglimm
Zakim IRC Bot: +bglimm ←
14:09:15 <bglimm> Zakim, mute me
Birte Glimm: Zakim, mute me ←
14:09:15 <pgearon> AxelPolleres: variable which is GROUPed BY is potentially unbound, should there by an error or unbound
Axel Polleres: variable which is GROUPed BY is potentially unbound, should there by an error or unbound ←
14:09:15 <Zakim> bglimm should now be muted
Zakim IRC Bot: bglimm should now be muted ←
14:09:48 <AxelPolleres> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-dawg/2010OctDec/0002.html
Axel Polleres: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-dawg/2010OctDec/0002.html ←
14:10:19 <pgearon> AxelPolleres: according to Andy, in ARQ there will be a separate group for unbound
Axel Polleres: according to Andy, in ARQ there will be a separate group for unbound ←
14:10:57 <pgearon> SteveH: the idea is that the key for that group would be a symbol indicating an error
Steve Harris: the idea is that the key for that group would be a symbol indicating an error ←
14:11:32 <AxelPolleres> GROUP BY (?X+?Y)
Axel Polleres: GROUP BY (?X+?Y) ←
14:12:10 <AxelPolleres> GROUP BY ((?X+?Y) AS ?Z)
Axel Polleres: GROUP BY ((?X+?Y) AS ?Z) ←
14:12:34 <kasei> I thought we had agreed to support grouping by expressions(?)
Gregory Williams: I thought we had agreed to support grouping by expressions(?) ←
14:12:48 <pgearon> SteveH: I don't think you can group by expressions. You can do it with a subquery that projects an expression
Steve Harris: I don't think you can group by expressions. You can do it with a subquery that projects an expression ←
14:13:11 <SteveH> kasei, I'm not 100% sure
Steve Harris: kasei, I'm not 100% sure ←
14:13:15 <pgearon> SteveH: if X and Y are both strings, then the evaluation will be an error, and all of those errors will fall into one group
Steve Harris: if X and Y are both strings, then the evaluation will be an error, and all of those errors will fall into one group ←
14:13:18 <AxelPolleres> current understanding is all errors and unbound would fall into one group
Axel Polleres: current understanding is all errors and unbound would fall into one group ←
14:13:37 <pgearon> AxelPolleres: is that compliant with what SQL does?
Axel Polleres: is that compliant with what SQL does? ←
14:13:47 <AxelPolleres> Axel: is that compliant with SQL?
Axel Polleres: is that compliant with SQL? [ Scribe Assist by Axel Polleres ] ←
14:14:14 <pgearon> SteveH: SQL doesn't define this, I don't think. I can't remember offhand. SPARQL have more type errors than SQL because SQL is loosely typed and SPARQL is strongly typed
Steve Harris: SQL doesn't define this, I don't think. I can't remember offhand. SPARQL have more type errors than SQL because SQL is loosely typed and SPARQL is strongly typed ←
14:14:34 <SteveH> pgearon, other way round SQL = strong, SPARQL = weak -- ish
Steve Harris: pgearon, other way round SQL = strong, SPARQL = weak -- ish ←
14:14:41 <AxelPolleres> Axel: ListEval() in the algebra needs adaption, yes?
Axel Polleres: ListEval() in the algebra needs adaption, yes? [ Scribe Assist by Axel Polleres ] ←
14:14:45 <pgearon> AxelPolleres: leave that with the editors. It will come back to the evaluation of list eval in the algebra
Axel Polleres: leave that with the editors. It will come back to the evaluation of list eval in the algebra ←
14:15:19 <MattPerry> FYI- Oracle SQL treats Null as a distinct group
Matthew Perry: FYI- Oracle SQL treats Null as a distinct group ←
14:16:21 <pgearon> MattPerry: just did a quick experiment of group by on a table with some null columns, and it came out as a separate group
Matthew Perry: just did a quick experiment of group by on a table with some null columns, and it came out as a separate group ←
14:16:23 <SteveH> good enough :)
Steve Harris: good enough :) ←
14:16:25 <AxelPolleres> ACTION: steve to implement the common understanding in ListEval() on unbound treated like errors
ACTION: steve to implement the common understanding in ListEval() on unbound treated like errors ←
14:16:26 <trackbot> Created ACTION-328 - Implement the common understanding in ListEval() on unbound treated like errors [on Steve Harris - due 2010-11-02].
Trackbot IRC Bot: Created ACTION-328 - Implement the common understanding in ListEval() on unbound treated like errors [on Steve Harris - due 2010-11-02]. ←
14:17:02 <AxelPolleres> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-dawg/2010OctDec/0041.html
Axel Polleres: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-dawg/2010OctDec/0041.html ←
14:17:26 <AxelPolleres> order by parameter for group concat
Axel Polleres: order by parameter for group concat ←
14:17:26 <pgearon> AxelPolleres: recall that we'd agreed to put an order by parameter on group concat
Axel Polleres: recall that we'd agreed to put an order by parameter on group concat ←
14:18:00 <AxelPolleres> ASC|DESC only or full expressions for order?
Axel Polleres: ASC|DESC only or full expressions for order? ←
14:18:07 <pgearon> AxelPolleres: in reply to this, Steve and also Andy said that we'd allow ASC|DESC
Axel Polleres: in reply to this, Steve and also Andy said that we'd allow ASC|DESC ←
14:18:18 <pgearon> Steveh: that's not my opinion
Steve Harris: that's not my opinion ←
14:18:28 <pgearon> SteveH: too much for this version of the spec
Steve Harris: too much for this version of the spec ←
14:18:53 <pgearon> (referring to full expressions for ordering)
(referring to full expressions for ordering) ←
14:19:26 <pgearon> SteveH: my proposal is to leave it as it is. No ORDER BY expression at all
Steve Harris: my proposal is to leave it as it is. No ORDER BY expression at all ←
14:19:43 <pgearon> AxelPolleres: I think that this would not be useful
Axel Polleres: I think that this would not be useful ←
14:20:01 <pgearon> AxelPolleres: disagree. Been using for a decade and have never needed ordering on this
Axel Polleres: disagree. Been using for a decade and have never needed ordering on this ←
14:20:01 <SteveH> Lee may have an opinion, he uses it a lot too
Steve Harris: Lee may have an opinion, he uses it a lot too ←
14:20:14 <AxelPolleres> Zakim, who is on the phone?
Axel Polleres: Zakim, who is on the phone? ←
14:20:14 <Zakim> On the phone I see NicoM, NickH, AxelPolleres, kasei (muted), OlivierCorby, cbuilara, MattPerry, SteveH, pgearon, Ivan, bglimm (muted)
Zakim IRC Bot: On the phone I see NicoM, NickH, AxelPolleres, kasei (muted), OlivierCorby, cbuilara, MattPerry, SteveH, pgearon, Ivan, bglimm (muted) ←
14:20:55 <pgearon> AxelPolleres: don't want to close this issue until we have other opinions. Expect Lee and Andy will have opinions on this, and they're not here this week
Axel Polleres: don't want to close this issue until we have other opinions. Expect Lee and Andy will have opinions on this, and they're not here this week ←
14:20:59 <SteveH> q+ to speak against simple ordering
Steve Harris: q+ to speak against simple ordering ←
14:21:44 <SteveH> we'll also need limit
Steve Harris: we'll also need limit ←
14:21:51 <AxelPolleres> Options for group_concat: 1) no order_by 2) simple order_by 3) full ordering by expressions (e.g. order by second letter of a word, etc.)
Axel Polleres: Options for group_concat: 1) no order_by 2) simple order_by 3) full ordering by expressions (e.g. order by second letter of a word, etc.) ←
14:22:05 <AxelPolleres> simple order by would just be ASC|DESC
Axel Polleres: simple order by would just be ASC|DESC ←
14:22:27 <pgearon> SteveH: concern that it won't meet all that many use cases, and we'll probably have full ordering in SPARQL 1.2 that may be different, and we don't want to have alternatives due to complexity
Steve Harris: concern that it won't meet all that many use cases, and we'll probably have full ordering in SPARQL 1.2 that may be different, and we don't want to have alternatives due to complexity ←
14:22:48 <AxelPolleres> argumetn against 3) is too much work at t the moment.
Axel Polleres: argumetn against 3) is too much work at t the moment. ←
14:23:08 <SteveH> 1 for now
Steve Harris: 1 for now ←
14:23:09 <kasei> 1 (punt until next time)
Gregory Williams: 1 (punt until next time) ←
14:23:12 <MattPerry> 1
Matthew Perry: 1 ←
14:23:13 <pgearon> 1
1 ←
14:23:13 <NickH> 1
14:23:14 <bglimm> 1
Birte Glimm: 1 ←
14:23:18 <AxelPolleres> strawpoll... 1,2,3?
Axel Polleres: strawpoll... 1,2,3? ←
14:23:31 <OlivierCorby> 1
Olivier Corby: 1 ←
14:23:33 <AxelPolleres> 2 mildly, but can live with 1.
Axel Polleres: 2 mildly, but can live with 1. ←
14:23:36 <NicoM> 1
Nico Michaelis: 1 ←
14:23:57 <pgearon> AxelPolleres: that's quite clear. We'll stick with no ORDER BY in group concat for the moment
Axel Polleres: that's quite clear. We'll stick with no ORDER BY in group concat for the moment ←
14:24:04 <AxelPolleres> current understanding is... let's stick with no ORDER BY
Axel Polleres: current understanding is... let's stick with no ORDER BY ←
14:24:23 <pgearon> next agendum
next agendum ←
14:24:23 <AxelPolleres> next agendum
Axel Polleres: next agendum ←
14:24:24 <SteveH> can we have a postponed t�hig for the next group?
Steve Harris: can we have a postponed t�hig for the next group? ←
14:24:31 <AxelPolleres> q?
Axel Polleres: q? ←
14:24:35 <SteveH> q-
Steve Harris: q- ←
14:24:39 <AxelPolleres> ack steveh
Axel Polleres: ack steveh ←
14:24:43 <AxelPolleres> next agendum
Axel Polleres: next agendum ←
14:24:59 <AxelPolleres> http://www.w3.org/2009/sparql/wiki/Potentially_bound
Axel Polleres: http://www.w3.org/2009/sparql/wiki/Potentially_bound ←
14:25:19 <pgearon> AxelPolleres: definition of "potentially bound" variables on the wiki
Axel Polleres: definition of "potentially bound" variables on the wiki ←
14:25:42 <pgearon> AxelPolleres: two things are ambiguous at the moment. First is, what is the meaning of "SELECT *"
Axel Polleres: two things are ambiguous at the moment. First is, what is the meaning of "SELECT *" ←
14:26:22 <pgearon> AxelPolleres: the spec mentions SELECT * in 2 places
Axel Polleres: the spec mentions SELECT * in 2 places ←
14:26:28 <AxelPolleres> 17.2.3 Converting Solution Modifiers
Axel Polleres: 17.2.3 Converting Solution Modifiers ←
14:26:48 <AxelPolleres> VS := list of all variables visible in the pattern
Axel Polleres: VS := list of all variables visible in the pattern ←
14:27:22 <pgearon> ... that's not clearly defined, but could use potentially bound variable definition
... that's not clearly defined, but could use potentially bound variable definition ←
14:28:30 <pgearon> AxelPolleres: proposal to use "potentially bound" as the definition for SELECT *
Axel Polleres: proposal to use "potentially bound" as the definition for SELECT * ←
14:28:56 <SteveH> doesn't this contradict a strawpoll earlier?
Steve Harris: doesn't this contradict a strawpoll earlier? ←
14:28:56 <AxelPolleres> strawpoll, shall we go ahead with that definiition to define "SELECT *"?
Axel Polleres: strawpoll, shall we go ahead with that definiition to define "SELECT *"? ←
14:30:20 <AxelPolleres> P = { P1 } GROUP BY E1 ... En such that either there is an Ei of the form ?v or (E AS ?v)
Axel Polleres: P = { P1 } GROUP BY E1 ... En such that either there is an Ei of the form ?v or (E AS ?v) ←
14:30:51 <pgearon> SteveH: there's a clause in the Potentially Bound def, that refers to GROUP BY, and this means that GROUP BY affects SELECT *
Steve Harris: there's a clause in the Potentially Bound def, that refers to GROUP BY, and this means that GROUP BY affects SELECT * ←
14:31:18 <SteveH> SELECT * WHERE { ?x ?y ?z } GROUP BY ?x, ?y
Steve Harris: SELECT * WHERE { ?x ?y ?z } GROUP BY ?x, ?y ←
14:31:30 <bglimm> Zakim, unmute me
Birte Glimm: Zakim, unmute me ←
14:31:30 <Zakim> bglimm should no longer be muted
Zakim IRC Bot: bglimm should no longer be muted ←
14:31:57 <bglimm> q+ to ask why * is not just an abbreviation for all variables mentioned
Birte Glimm: q+ to ask why * is not just an abbreviation for all variables mentioned ←
14:32:07 <pgearon> SteveH: think that the previous strawpoll suggested that query should be an error
Steve Harris: think that the previous strawpoll suggested that query should be an error ←
14:32:10 <SteveH> bglimm, quite
Steve Harris: bglimm, quite ←
14:33:07 <SteveH> MINUS is a little tricky
Steve Harris: MINUS is a little tricky ←
14:33:10 <pgearon> bglimm: recall that was an error, since * refers to all variables, and ?z cannot be selected when it is not in the GROUP BY
Birte Glimm: recall that was an error, since * refers to all variables, and ?z cannot be selected when it is not in the GROUP BY ←
14:33:24 <AxelPolleres> "The syntax SELECT * is an abbreviation that selects all of the variables that could be bound in a query."
Axel Polleres: "The syntax SELECT * is an abbreviation that selects all of the variables that could be bound in a query." ←
14:33:32 <AxelPolleres> section 15.1.1
Axel Polleres: section 15.1.1 ←
14:33:46 <kasei> i think the current definition has some bugs in it. I'm in favor or using something like this, but probably not this exact text.
Gregory Williams: i think the current definition has some bugs in it. I'm in favor or using something like this, but probably not this exact text. ←
14:34:06 <kasei> in particular, the definition for SERVICE seems wrong.
Gregory Williams: in particular, the definition for SERVICE seems wrong. ←
14:34:08 <pgearon> I agree with bglimm. I think * would refer to ?z and this must lead to an error
I agree with bglimm. I think * would refer to ?z and this must lead to an error ←
14:34:13 <SteveH> 10.1 "The syntax SELECT * is an abbreviation that selects all of the variables in a query."
Steve Harris: 10.1 "The syntax SELECT * is an abbreviation that selects all of the variables in a query." ←
14:34:43 <kasei> Zakim, unmute me
Gregory Williams: Zakim, unmute me ←
14:34:43 <Zakim> kasei should no longer be muted
Zakim IRC Bot: kasei should no longer be muted ←
14:34:44 <cbuilara> but the SERVICE definition does not use potentally bound
Carlos Buil Aranda: but the SERVICE definition does not use potentally bound ←
14:34:49 <SteveH> http://www.w3.org/TR/rdf-sparql-query/#select
Steve Harris: http://www.w3.org/TR/rdf-sparql-query/#select ←
14:34:55 <pgearon> bglimm: I don't see why the definition needs to be complicated. Just refer to all variables, and then define errors in some cases
Birte Glimm: I don't see why the definition needs to be complicated. Just refer to all variables, and then define errors in some cases ←
14:34:59 <MattPerry> SELECT * FROM EMP GROUP BY job is an error in SQL
Matthew Perry: SELECT * FROM EMP GROUP BY job is an error in SQL ←
14:36:53 <kasei> kasei: the defintion for SERVICE seems wrong as "SERVICE ?t {...}" alone won't mean ?t is potentially bound
Gregory Williams: the defintion for SERVICE seems wrong as "SERVICE ?t {...}" alone won't mean ?t is potentially bound [ Scribe Assist by Gregory Williams ] ←
14:37:08 <kasei> Zakim, mute me
Gregory Williams: Zakim, mute me ←
14:37:08 <Zakim> kasei should now be muted
Zakim IRC Bot: kasei should now be muted ←
14:37:09 <pgearon> SteveH: the first spec just says that SELECT * selects all the variables from the query
Steve Harris: the first spec just says that SELECT * selects all the variables from the query ←
14:37:30 <pgearon> +q
+q ←
14:37:38 <bglimm> ack bglimm
Birte Glimm: ack bglimm ←
14:37:38 <Zakim> bglimm, you wanted to ask why * is not just an abbreviation for all variables mentioned
Zakim IRC Bot: bglimm, you wanted to ask why * is not just an abbreviation for all variables mentioned ←
14:38:14 <bglimm> Zakim, mute me
Birte Glimm: Zakim, mute me ←
14:38:14 <Zakim> bglimm should now be muted
Zakim IRC Bot: bglimm should now be muted ←
14:38:52 <SteveH> it does need a bit of rewording, yes
Steve Harris: it does need a bit of rewording, yes ←
14:39:18 <kasei> bglimm, which is the same as not grouping, right? :)
Gregory Williams: bglimm, which is the same as not grouping, right? :) ←
14:39:29 <SteveH> kasei, well, it's the same as lots of groups of 1
Steve Harris: kasei, well, it's the same as lots of groups of 1 ←
14:39:36 <bglimm> yes, subquery might be a reason for the def to be more complicated
Birte Glimm: yes, subquery might be a reason for the def to be more complicated ←
14:39:43 <SteveH> kasei, not grouping is one group of everything
Steve Harris: kasei, not grouping is one group of everything ←
14:40:06 <AxelPolleres> paul: subquery SELECT * would mean also the variables in the subquery..�
Paul Gearon: subquery SELECT * would mean also the variables in the subquery..� [ Scribe Assist by Axel Polleres ] ←
14:40:29 <pgearon> according to the SPARQL 1 definition, yes
according to the SPARQL 1 definition, yes ←
14:40:31 <kasei> ok, right. I hope my main point was clear, though: it's a nice syntax shortcut.
Gregory Williams: ok, right. I hope my main point was clear, though: it's a nice syntax shortcut. ←
14:41:07 <pgearon> we need to update the definition so that it does not "accidentally" refer to variables that are out of scope (ie in a subquery)
we need to update the definition so that it does not "accidentally" refer to variables that are out of scope (ie in a subquery) ←
14:41:24 <Zakim> -NickH
Zakim IRC Bot: -NickH ←
14:41:33 <AxelPolleres> SELECT * WHERE { ... SELECT ?X { ?X ? Y ...} }}
Axel Polleres: SELECT * WHERE { ... SELECT ?X { ?X ? Y ...} }} ←
14:41:43 <SteveH> something like "all of the variables in this query, or it's subqueries"
Steve Harris: something like "all of the variables in this query, or it's subqueries" ←
14:41:44 <AxelPolleres> would leave ?Y always unbound
Axel Polleres: would leave ?Y always unbound ←
14:42:16 <pgearon> I don't want ?Y to appear in SELECT * in that case
I don't want ?Y to appear in SELECT * in that case ←
14:42:20 <SteveH> my feeling is that as soon as you get to that level of complexity * is pretty useless
Steve Harris: my feeling is that as soon as you get to that level of complexity * is pretty useless ←
14:42:31 <bglimm> yes, I agree with pgearon
Birte Glimm: yes, I agree with pgearon ←
14:42:35 <MattPerry> I agree with Paul. It should only get ?x
Matthew Perry: I agree with Paul. It should only get ?x ←
14:42:45 <Zakim> +??P1
Zakim IRC Bot: +??P1 ←
14:42:52 <kasei> pgearon, how is that different from variables which aren't grouped?
Gregory Williams: pgearon, how is that different from variables which aren't grouped? ←
14:42:54 <NickH> Zakim, ??P1 is me
Nicholas Humfrey: Zakim, ??P1 is me ←
14:42:54 <Zakim> +NickH; got it
Zakim IRC Bot: +NickH; got it ←
14:43:10 <SteveH> subqueries, and MINUS I think
Steve Harris: subqueries, and MINUS I think ←
14:43:18 <SteveH> perhaps
Steve Harris: perhaps ←
14:43:21 <OlivierCorby> Nice use case: SELECT * WHERE { ... SELECT * { ?X ? Y ...} }}
Olivier Corby: Nice use case: SELECT * WHERE { ... SELECT * { ?X ? Y ...} }} ←
14:43:40 <AxelPolleres> SELECT * WHERE { ... SELECT ?X { ?X ? Y ...} }}
Axel Polleres: SELECT * WHERE { ... SELECT ?X { ?X ? Y ...} }} ←
14:43:41 <bglimm> that should give ?x ?y IMO
Birte Glimm: that should give ?x ?y IMO ←
14:43:44 <pgearon> variables (like ?y in the above query) are not in scope, whereas ungrouped variables are in scope, but not selectable
variables (like ?y in the above query) are not in scope, whereas ungrouped variables are in scope, but not selectable ←
14:43:44 <Zakim> -OlivierCorby
Zakim IRC Bot: -OlivierCorby ←
14:44:06 <AxelPolleres> strawpoll... +1 ?X only -1 ?X ?Y
Axel Polleres: strawpoll... +1 ?X only -1 ?X ?Y ←
14:44:08 <kasei> +1
Gregory Williams: +1 ←
14:44:10 <SteveH> 0
Steve Harris: 0 ←
14:44:12 <pgearon> +1
+1 ←
14:44:14 <bglimm> +1
Birte Glimm: +1 ←
14:44:14 <MattPerry> +1
Matthew Perry: +1 ←
14:44:18 <cbuilara> +1
Carlos Buil Aranda: +1 ←
14:44:31 <Zakim> +OlivierCorby
Zakim IRC Bot: +OlivierCorby ←
14:44:38 <pgearon> I don't see how it could be otherwise. There's no point in having a SELECT clause in the subquery otherwise
I don't see how it could be otherwise. There's no point in having a SELECT clause in the subquery otherwise ←
14:44:50 <bglimm> yes
Birte Glimm: yes ←
14:44:53 <SteveH> pgearon, huh? it's just sugar
Steve Harris: pgearon, huh? it's just sugar ←
14:45:00 <pgearon> +q
+q ←
14:45:04 <bglimm> Zakim, unmute me
Birte Glimm: Zakim, unmute me ←
14:45:04 <Zakim> bglimm should no longer be muted
Zakim IRC Bot: bglimm should no longer be muted ←
14:45:46 <AxelPolleres> birte: "potentially bound" should only cover subqueries but not more...
Birte Glimm: "potentially bound" should only cover subqueries but not more... [ Scribe Assist by Axel Polleres ] ←
14:45:46 <SteveH> agreed, "potentially bound" is not a good phrase, ambiguous
Steve Harris: agreed, "potentially bound" is not a good phrase, ambiguous ←
14:45:51 <pgearon> bglimm: the def should cover only the subquery case, don't want it too complicated
Birte Glimm: the def should cover only the subquery case, don't want it too complicated ←
14:46:04 <pgearon> AxelPolleres: can you make a proposal please?
Axel Polleres: can you make a proposal please? ←
14:46:09 <pgearon> bglimm: OK
Birte Glimm: OK ←
14:46:18 <AxelPolleres> ACTION: birte to come up with a more minimalistic proposal for "*" than "potentially bound"
ACTION: birte to come up with a more minimalistic proposal for "*" than "potentially bound" ←
14:46:18 <trackbot> Created ACTION-329 - Come up with a more minimalistic proposal for "*" than "potentially bound" [on Birte Glimm - due 2010-11-02].
Trackbot IRC Bot: Created ACTION-329 - Come up with a more minimalistic proposal for "*" than "potentially bound" [on Birte Glimm - due 2010-11-02]. ←
14:49:00 <AxelPolleres> birte, it seems that a stub for that is already in Section 17...
Axel Polleres: birte, it seems that a stub for that is already in Section 17... ←
14:49:27 <pgearon> +1 for waiting for bglimm's proposed definition
+1 for waiting for bglimm's proposed definition ←
14:50:17 <pgearon> AxelPolleres: another restriction on the use of SELECT expressions, which is where this definition of Potentially Bound was coming into play
Axel Polleres: another restriction on the use of SELECT expressions, which is where this definition of Potentially Bound was coming into play ←
14:50:22 <AxelPolleres> "The new variable is introduced using the keyword AS; it must not already be potentially bound."
Axel Polleres: "The new variable is introduced using the keyword AS; it must not already be potentially bound." ←
14:50:40 <AxelPolleres> and I guess we'll have thesame restriction for BIND
Axel Polleres: and I guess we'll have thesame restriction for BIND ←
14:50:50 <SteveH> this is to meet Andy's SAMPLE(?x) A ?x usecase I think
Steve Harris: this is to meet Andy's SAMPLE(?x) A ?x usecase I think ←
14:50:54 <SteveH> *AS
Steve Harris: *AS ←
14:52:01 <AxelPolleres> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-dawg/2010OctDec/0087.html
Axel Polleres: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-dawg/2010OctDec/0087.html ←
14:52:30 <AxelPolleres> andy seems to indicate it's natural
Axel Polleres: andy seems to indicate it's natural ←
14:52:31 <AxelPolleres> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-dawg/2010OctDec/0101.html
Axel Polleres: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-dawg/2010OctDec/0101.html ←
14:52:33 <pgearon> +q
+q ←
14:52:43 <AxelPolleres> lee says it is forbidden in Glitter
Axel Polleres: lee says it is forbidden in Glitter ←
14:54:14 <pgearon> pgearon: Andy will have a strong opinion here. Any conversation we have will be repeated once he comes back, so we shouldn't spend any further time on it
Paul Gearon: Andy will have a strong opinion here. Any conversation we have will be repeated once he comes back, so we shouldn't spend any further time on it ←
14:54:26 <SteveH> we can deal with the SAMPLE usecase by just saying that no two aggregate expression can project the same variable name
Steve Harris: we can deal with the SAMPLE usecase by just saying that no two aggregate expression can project the same variable name ←
14:54:30 <pgearon> -q
-q ←
14:54:31 <SteveH> as you said they're a different case
Steve Harris: as you said they're a different case ←
14:54:42 <AxelPolleres> Problem is: "The new variable is introduced using the keyword AS; it must not already be potentially bound." Aggregates are not affected by this restriction
Axel Polleres: Problem is: "The new variable is introduced using the keyword AS; it must not already be potentially bound." Aggregates are not affected by this restriction ←
14:54:46 <SteveH> you=axel :)
Steve Harris: you=axel :) ←
14:55:56 <bglimm> I'll try
Birte Glimm: I'll try ←
14:56:01 <pgearon> AxelPolleres: on test cases. Ask that anyone with a test case on the list, please fix wrt what was decided last time
Axel Polleres: on test cases. Ask that anyone with a test case on the list, please fix wrt what was decided last time ←
14:56:02 <MattPerry> sure
Matthew Perry: sure ←
14:56:10 <kasei> is there a summary of "what we decided last time"? I didn't really follow it.
Gregory Williams: is there a summary of "what we decided last time"? I didn't really follow it. ←
14:56:22 <SteveH> bye all
Steve Harris: bye all ←
14:56:44 <MattPerry> bye
Matthew Perry: bye ←
14:56:48 <ivan> zakim, drop me
Ivan Herman: zakim, drop me ←
14:56:52 <kasei> ok, that would help. the minutes weren't all that clear to me.
Gregory Williams: ok, that would help. the minutes weren't all that clear to me. ←
14:56:56 <AxelPolleres> Axel: will try to include decisions from ;last time on test vocab into README.html
Axel Polleres: will try to include decisions from ;last time on test vocab into README.html [ Scribe Assist by Axel Polleres ] ←
14:57:02 <Zakim> Ivan is being disconnected
Zakim IRC Bot: Ivan is being disconnected ←
14:57:04 <pgearon> AxelPolleres: summary from last time in the minutes, but hope to get this into html files before the end of the week
Axel Polleres: summary from last time in the minutes, but hope to get this into html files before the end of the week ←
14:57:06 <Zakim> -Ivan
Zakim IRC Bot: -Ivan ←
14:57:08 <Zakim> -MattPerry
Zakim IRC Bot: -MattPerry ←
14:57:12 <Zakim> -bglimm
Zakim IRC Bot: -bglimm ←
14:57:22 <Zakim> -SteveH
Zakim IRC Bot: -SteveH ←
14:57:28 <AxelPolleres> please all try to update test cases accordingly, and send a mail to the list askign for approval, as you';re done.
Axel Polleres: please all try to update test cases accordingly, and send a mail to the list askign for approval, as you';re done. ←
14:57:29 <Zakim> -NicoM
Zakim IRC Bot: -NicoM ←
14:57:31 <Zakim> -OlivierCorby
Zakim IRC Bot: -OlivierCorby ←
14:57:34 <Zakim> -kasei
Zakim IRC Bot: -kasei ←
14:57:35 <AxelPolleres> adjourned
Axel Polleres: adjourned ←
14:57:40 <Zakim> -cbuilara
Zakim IRC Bot: -cbuilara ←
14:57:40 <Zakim> -NickH
Zakim IRC Bot: -NickH ←
14:59:08 <AxelPolleres> rrsagent, make records public
Axel Polleres: rrsagent, make records public ←
14:59:14 <Zakim> -AxelPolleres
Zakim IRC Bot: -AxelPolleres ←
14:59:18 <Zakim> -pgearon
Zakim IRC Bot: -pgearon ←
14:59:20 <Zakim> SW_(SPARQL)10:00AM has ended
Zakim IRC Bot: SW_(SPARQL)10:00AM has ended ←
14:59:23 <Zakim> Attendees were +49.911.973.4.aaaa, NickH, NicoM, AxelPolleres, kasei, OlivierCorby, MattPerry, cbuilara, SteveH, pgearon, Ivan, bglimm
Zakim IRC Bot: Attendees were +49.911.973.4.aaaa, NickH, NicoM, AxelPolleres, kasei, OlivierCorby, MattPerry, cbuilara, SteveH, pgearon, Ivan, bglimm ←
15:01:47 <AxelPolleres> paul, guess you can just generate the minutes and the nstore the html locally to be sure it's not lost.
Axel Polleres: paul, guess you can just generate the minutes and the nstore the html locally to be sure it's not lost. ←
15:01:50 <AxelPolleres> thanks!
Axel Polleres: thanks! ←
Formatted by CommonScribe
This revision (#1) generated 2010-11-01 16:29:36 UTC by 'lfeigenb', comments: 'minutes, thanks to Paul'