Chatlog 2009-04-14

From SPARQL Working Group
Jump to: navigation, search

See original RRSAgent log and preview nicely formatted version.

Please justify/explain all edits to this page, in your "edit summary" text.

<LeeF> Present: Lee, Steve, Luke, Andy, ivanh, Orri, dnewman2, kasei, chimezie, john-l, ericp, Simon
13:51:19 <trackbot> Meeting: SPARQL Working Group Teleconference
13:51:21 <trackbot>  Date: 14 April 2009
13:53:40 <LeeF> Regrets: Axel, Alex, Kjetil, Jacek
13:53:43 <LeeF> Chair: LeeF
13:54:47 <AndyS> Agenda AOB request - F2F1 - We seem to have 5 Boston, 7 Bristol.
13:56:31 <LeeF> AndyS, ack
13:56:38 <Zakim> SW_(SPARQL)10:00AM has now started
14:02:29 <ivanh> scribenick: ivanh
14:02:38 <ivanh> scribe: ivanh
14:03:24 <chimezie> zakim, unmute me
14:03:59 <ivanh> Topic: administravia
14:04:05 <kasei> zakim, mute me
14:04:05 <Zakim> kasei was already muted, kasei
14:04:09 <LeeF> -> agenda for today
14:04:24 <LeeF> PROPOSED: Approve minutes at
14:04:26 <Zakim> -Lee_Feigenbaum
14:04:39 <Zakim> +EricP
14:04:51 <Zakim> +Lee_Feigenbaum
14:05:20 <Zakim> + +1.479.864.aaee
14:06:06 <ivanh> RESOLVED: Approve minutes at
14:06:15 <ivanh> topic: next meeting
14:06:20 <ivanh> next tuesday, this time
14:06:32 <ivanh> regrets next week: orri, ivanh
14:06:55 <ivanh> lee: any report of our liaisons?
14:07:14 <ivanh> AndyS: i believe sparql and owl will ask us to review rdf:text 
14:07:28 <AndyS> s/sparql/rif/
14:07:38 <ivanh> LeeF: what we said that when the text is ready we will send it to the mailing list and see if anybody is interested
14:07:47 <ivanh> Topic: rechartering issue
14:08:47 <ivanh> lee: my understanding is that it should not affect our work at all
14:09:14 <ivanh> ... this may be naive or optimistic, but we should be able to do the same work the same way
14:10:24 <LeeF> ivanh: the way the charter is done today is extremely open-ended, and companies that really want to consider all their patent issues cannot make any patent disclosures right now since nothing specifies what will be part of a Recommendation
14:10:40 <LeeF> ... we received remarks from members making us consider this
14:11:13 <LeeF> ... we have sent out a rechartering proposal to the AC that charters this group to produce a non-Rec track document (WG Note) called features & rationale that lists all the features we want in SPARQL
14:11:18 <LeeF> ... formal lifespan is through the end of July
14:11:51 <LeeF> ... in practice, group keeps doing what it is doing, but needs to publish this WG Note before end of July
14:12:03 <chimezie> zakim, mute me
14:12:03 <Zakim> chimezie should now be muted
14:12:21 <LeeF> ... as soon as we publish a first public working draft of requirements (hopefully 2nd half of May), we would immediately do a 2nd rechartering that lists the features as part of the charter
14:12:31 <SteveH> q+ to ask about process and schedule
14:13:10 <LeeF> ... if new charter proposal is done by end of May, it would be official by end of June, so from beginning-to-mid of July the group could be active under the second charter
14:13:43 <LeeF> ... no problem if group begins to really work on specification work in May - the only thing the group should not do is publish a First Public Working Draft because that is what leads to patent issues
14:13:56 <LeeF> ... no problem with editors' drafts
14:14:24 <LeeF> ack SteveH
14:14:24 <Zakim> SteveH, you wanted to ask about process and schedule
14:15:17 <LeeF> SteveH: my understanding around Lee's intentions was to iterate on the process - consider other things as time permits
14:15:27 <LeeF> ... but now we no longer have that flexibility
14:15:47 <ericP> i don't think we'll be any more bound later on than we would be in any other WG
14:16:11 <LeeF> ... if charter is bound, we can't go ahead and talk about details because that would be outside the charter
14:17:07 <ericP> q+ to say that this ends up being like any other WG
14:17:48 <LeeF> LeeF: intention is to reach consensus on 'required' and 'time permitting' deliverables, and then include them all in the new charter
14:18:03 <AndyS> q+ to aks about IP review at WD stages
14:18:39 <kasei> is everyone else hearing lots of (mobile?) interference on the call, or is it just me?
14:18:52 <SimonS> me too. 
14:19:41 <ivanh> ack ericP 
14:19:41 <Zakim> ericP, you wanted to say that this ends up being like any other WG
14:20:06 <LeeF> ericp: we have patent policy since companies want to know what they're working on - the charter for the 2nd phase of the group ends up being like any other group
14:21:16 <ivanh> ack AndyS
14:21:16 <Zakim> AndyS, you wanted to aks about IP review at WD stages
14:21:47 <LeeF> AndyS: HP was quite well aware of this issue and noted that there is a call for IP disclosures when a FPWD is published
14:22:28 <LeeF> ivanh: Acknowledged; other groups are less flexible with respect to knowing potential IP issues
14:22:35 <LeeF> AndyS: will we all need to rejoin the WG?
14:22:39 <SteveH> wondering what the risk of not being rechartered is
14:23:04 <LeeF> ericP: I believe so.
14:23:40 <LeeF> AndyS: I don't think I could justify the new charter within my organization
14:31:05 <AndyS> s/I don't think I could justify the new charter within my organization/I don't think I could justify the nwe charter without internal review within my organsiation/
14:24:29 <LeeF> ericP: I think for phase I we could continue the existing membership, but for phase II people would need to re-join
14:24:46 <SteveH> q+
14:24:50 <LeeF> AndyS: if there's no grace period it will be very rough 
14:25:23 <LeeF> AndyS: concern about publication - editors' drafts have been publicly available in the past - the difference between editors' draft being publicly available and FPWD is not that big
14:25:43 <LeeF> ivanh: difference is in commitment from WG and IP commitment
14:26:00 <LeeF> AndyS: I'm not sure if putting information in public exposes the editor's organization
14:27:05 <chimezie> zakim, mute me
14:27:05 <Zakim> chimezie was already muted, chimezie
14:27:07 <ivanh> ack SteveH 
14:27:17 <LeeF> ivanh: if work is done on wiki as joint WG work, might not be an issue
14:27:43 <LeeF> SteveH: is there middle ground with a formal pause between 2 phases rather than a full rechartering? is this new standard operating procedure?
14:28:03 <Zakim> + +1.415.371.aaff
14:28:09 <LeeF> ivanh: this occurred because the initial charter was too broad
14:28:19 <LeeF> ... might have been better with initial work as a short-lived XG
14:29:14 <LeeF> SteveH: it's not a guarantee that phase II will happen (get rechartered
14:29:20 <LeeF> s/rechartered/rechartered)/
14:29:28 <dnewman2> dnewman2 has joined #sparql
14:29:36 <LeeF> ivanh: yes, that's a risk, we tried to avoid it but it didn't work out
14:29:48 <LeeF> zakim, aaff is dnewman2
14:29:49 <Zakim> +dnewman2; got it
14:30:15 <LeeF> SteveH: what happens if the AC rejects the rechartering?
14:30:42 <LeeF> ericP: The Director has some leeway. Given the current state of affairs, I don't see this as a significant risk
14:36:01 <ericP> AndyS, SteveH, would a note to public-rdf-dawg would have make this better?
14:36:06 <SteveH> yes
14:36:30 <AndyS> No
14:37:07 <AndyS> Notifying current members before it went wide would have been helpful.  Notify - not discuss.
14:37:23 <SteveH> yes, dicsussion is not neccesary
14:37:24 <ericP> (there's also the question of what volume of mutterings consitute time to alarm folks)
14:37:34 <ericP> s/consitute/consitutes/
14:38:14 <ivanh> topic: features discussions
14:38:20 <ivanh> subtopic: parameterized inference
<LeeF> summary: initial straw poll gives (+/0/-): 4/3/5
14:38:22 <LeeF> ->
14:38:26 <chimezie> zakim, unmute me
14:38:26 <Zakim> chimezie should no longer be muted
14:38:39 <ivanh> LeeF: there has been a bunch of discussions on that
14:38:54 <ivanh> chimezie, can you summarize?
14:39:25 <ivanh> chimezie: the link has a descriptioin for the general requirements
14:39:50 <ivanh> .. .last week we proposed the parametrization was used to describe the inference regime
14:40:00 <ivanh> ... this would go beyond owl
14:40:11 <ivanh> ... the wiki also mentions merging datasets
14:40:16 <LeeF> q+ to ask if merging datasets is the same as composite dataset issue
14:40:39 <ivanh> ... from ontologies or rules into the graph
14:40:51 <ivanh> ... that overlaps with the previous feature
14:41:06 <ivanh> ... there was a possibility to break this thing into a separate feature
14:41:28 <ivanh> ... the last thing is to parametrize whether an ent. regime would give all possible answers or not, for example
14:41:39 <ivanh> ... the general idea is to parametrize the possible answers
14:42:06 <ivanh> LeeF: is the topic of merging the same as composite datatypes
14:42:08 <AndyS> q+ to ask about protocol implications
14:42:12 <LeeF> s/datatypes/datasets
14:42:28 <ivanh> chimezie: yes, but if you want an additional answers, do you have to bring the data in, for example
14:42:31 <ivanh> q+
14:43:07 <ivanh> LeeF: is it fair to say that the issue is giving all possible answers vs. not is a detail that can be worked out later, or has to discussed upfront
14:43:37 <SteveH> Zakim, who's talking
14:43:37 <Zakim> I don't understand 'who's talking', SteveH
14:43:38 <ivanh> chimezie: i do not think we have to answer this question now
14:43:50 <LeeF> ack leef
14:43:50 <Zakim> LeeF, you wanted to ask if merging datasets is the same as composite dataset issue
14:43:52 <LeeF> ack AndyS
14:43:53 <john-l> Zakim, please mute me
14:43:53 <Zakim> AndyS, you wanted to ask about protocol implications
14:43:55 <SimonS> q+
14:43:56 <Zakim> john-l should now be muted
14:44:06 <ivanh> AndyS: this looks like describing the environment where the query executes
14:44:15 <ivanh> ... do we want that to be in the protocol, too
14:45:07 <ivanh> chimezie: i believe that the environment is for a set of query?
14:45:35 <ivanh> AndyS: al lthe examples have a syntax for replacing datasets
14:45:36 <Zakim> On IRC I see dnewman2, ericP, LukeWM_, SteveH, ivanh, SimonS, Zakim, RRSAgent, chimezie, kasei, AndyS, AndyS_, LeeF, trackbot, john-l
14:45:41 <LeeF> zakim, mute aaee
14:45:41 <Zakim> +1.479.864.aaee should now be muted
14:45:48 <ivanh> ... could one consider protocol entries instead of the query
14:45:55 <SimonS> q-
14:46:01 <ivanh> chimezie: you mean being in the http request body?
14:46:26 <ivanh> AndyS: we have default graph uri in the query, something like that ought to be considered
14:46:28 <LeeF> res discussions
14:46:47 <LeeF> q?
14:46:47 <ivanh> chimezie: it would be a similar request adn we should probably consider that
14:46:59 <LeeF> ack ivanh
14:47:27 <AndyS> I see two features - inference control and dataset composition.  Related but different.
14:47:45 <LeeF> AndyS, I agree with you - there is also service description, but we've considered that on its own already
14:47:47 <SimonS> ack.
14:48:22 <AndyS> Yes - service description is the service controlling things - this is query controlling things.
14:48:34 <LeeF> AndyS, agreed.
14:49:34 <ivanh> LeeF: i see two different things for the 'vote', inference control and dataset composition
14:49:55 <chimezie> zakim, mute me
14:49:55 <Zakim> chimezie should now be muted
14:50:07 <ivanh> let us do a sraw poll on the inference control/description
14:50:45 <SimonS> +q
14:50:49 <ivanh> ... whether it is on the protocol or the language level are details, we should have a poll on whether this particular feature is to be considered
14:50:54 <LeeF> ack SimonS
14:51:08 <chimezie> zakim, unmute me
14:51:08 <Zakim> chimezie should no longer be muted
14:51:12 <ivanh> SimonS: i think this is useful, but it is very fuzzy, there are so many different things one could do
14:51:23 <ivanh> ... we need clarification before working on the details
14:51:47 <ivanh> ... i have the feeling that we are mixing different things here, bringing in rules for example
14:51:56 <ivanh> ... in principle I think this is useful
14:52:12 <ivanh> LeeF: any other comments?
14:52:14 <ivanh> ....
14:52:16 <ivanh> ....
14:52:20 <SteveH> -1, too early, not enough experience
14:52:21 <ericP> -1 # fear it would distract from my highest priorities: update and lists
14:52:33 <kasei> 0
14:52:35 <ivanh> +1
14:52:35 <john-l> 0
14:52:36 <chimezie> +1 extends usefulness of SPARQL 
14:52:40 <dnewman2> +1 useful feature
14:52:51 <AndyS> -1, too early not enough implementation experience. Use extensions
14:53:01 <chimezie> zakim, mute me
14:53:02 <Zakim> chimezie should now be muted
14:53:06 <LeeF> Orri: +1 (will not be trivial, but important)
14:53:09 <SimonS> -1 useful, but too fuzzy. Other priorities
14:53:12 <LeeF> 0
14:53:23 <Zakim> - +1.479.864.aaee
14:53:31 <LukeWM_> -1 seems vague at the moment
14:53:43 <ivanh> q+
14:54:03 <chimezie> zakim unmute me
14:54:04 <Zakim> + +1.479.864.aagg
14:54:36 <SteveH> q+
14:54:43 <ivanh> ack ivanh 
14:54:45 <AndyS> q+
14:55:01 <chimezie> q+ to respond to LeeF
14:55:28 <dnewman2> +q
14:55:32 <LeeF> ack SteveH
14:55:44 <ivanh> SteveH: people have been doing this for some time without this feature
14:55:45 <LeeF> ivanh: how is SPARQL/OWL useful without this?
14:56:08 <ivanh> ... people have been doing that for a while
14:56:16 <AndyS> ack AndyS
14:56:26 <LeeF> LeeF: there are other ways (rather than specifying in the query) to know that you are querying an endpoint that does SPARQL/OWL
14:56:31 <ivanh> AndyS: much the same thing as SteveH..
14:58:31 <LeeF> ack chimezie
14:58:33 <Zakim> chimezie, you wanted to respond to LeeF
14:58:47 <ivanh> chimezie: i think there is a confusion what this suggests and what bijan suggested
14:59:06 <ivanh> ... the only thing is which particular entailment regime you use
14:59:36 <ivanh> LeeF: my problem was the maturity of the different entailement regimes
14:59:56 <ivanh> ... the interplay with the query language, how would you put it into the query language
15:00:08 <LeeF> s/was the maturity/was not the maturity
15:00:10 <LeeF> zakim, mute Orri
15:00:10 <Zakim> Orri should now be muted
15:00:24 <ivanh> (scribe had to give up)
15:01:00 <ivanh> chimezie: if you separate the inclusion of ent regime from the answer itself,
15:01:11 <ivanh> ... we need to standardize this
15:01:27 <ivanh> ... otherwise we cannot move one query from one place to the other
15:01:32 <ivanh> q+
15:01:41 <LeeF> ack dnewman2
15:01:43 <LeeF> ack dnewman
15:02:16 <ivanh> dnewman2: end user prospective, we are talking about using sparql to dynamically trigger inferencing at the point of the query
15:02:22 <ivanh> ... that to me is a very useful feature
15:02:35 <chimezie> Seems like there is 1) Which entailment regime should answers be conditioned on 2) Is this specified in the query langauge and/or the protocol 3) how are datasets composed
15:02:38 <ivanh> ... we have come across this request, and it is very high on our wish list
15:02:44 <chimezie> zakim, mute me
15:02:44 <Zakim> chimezie should now be muted
15:02:45 <ivanh> q-
15:02:57 <ericP> dnewman2, would being able to choose between two endpoints which offered no entailment and entailmentX suffice for your needs?
15:03:14 <ivanh> q+
15:03:29 <chimezie> I don't think SPARQL-DL requires (USING ... for example)
15:03:47 <SteveH> what about using entailments in some parts of the query and not others for example. is an example of something that curretn systems do, but this proposal does not address
15:03:48 <chimezie> it just expects additional answers to queries WRT OWL-DL entailment
15:04:12 <chimezie> SPARQL-DL being Bijan's proposal
15:04:48 <LeeF> ivanh: Bijan's proposal [SPARQL/OWL] describes what answers to expect when querying under DL entailment
15:05:04 <LeeF> ... there are other entailment regimes
15:05:07 <ericP> foaf-smushing is a high-profile candidate entailment
15:05:11 <LeeF> ... no answer for how to choose it
15:05:20 <chimezie> SteveH: I'm not sure how you can specify the conditions on a query at such a level of granularity (i.e., specific parts of the query)
15:05:20 <LeeF> ... one possibility is multiple query endpoints
15:05:31 <LeeF> s/SteveH:/SteveH,/
15:05:45 <SteveH> chimezie, well, jena does that now I believe, and my old systems did too
15:06:01 <SteveH> chimezie, it's not really that hard, and quite essential
15:06:04 <SimonS> we do multiple graphs instead of multiple endpoints.
15:06:13 <SteveH> ditto
15:07:30 <AndyS> ditto
15:08:07 <SimonS> Views can then be used to combine the results from multiple graphs.
15:08:22 <SteveH> ivanh, the proposal where you give an entailment regime for the whole query is sufficiently behind the state of the art that I don't believe it covers the common use-cases
15:08:53 <ivanh> SteveH, let us discuss this on the list. I may not understand the issue then
15:11:28 <chimezie> I guess I'm more concerned about how the user specifies exactly the semantics  of 'partial' entailments like that, not so much how they are implemented 
<LeeF> Adjourned.