Warning:
This wiki has been archived and is now read-only.
Chatlog 2009-06-16
From SPARQL Working Group
See original RRSAgent log and preview nicely formatted version.
Please justify/explain all edits to this page, in your "edit summary" text.
<AxelPolleres> Present: Axel, bglimm, kasei, Alex, SteveH, Simon, Andy, KjetilK, bijan, Orri <AxelPolleres> Regrets: IvanH, Eric, Lee, Prateek, Paul, Chimezie <AxelPolleres> Meeting: SPARQL WG Weekly Teleconference <AxelPolleres> Date: 2009-06-16 14:01:28 <AxelPolleres> scribenick: bglimm 14:01:28 <AxelPolleres> Chair: Axel Polleres 14:01:34 <AxelPolleres> scribe: Birte Glimm 14:04:00 <bglimm> AxelPolleres: Many people are at SemTec and cannot attend today 14:04:12 <AxelPolleres> http://www.w3.org/2009/sparql/wiki/Agenda-2009-06-16 14:04:31 <bglimm> AxelPolleres: let's approve the minutes from last time 14:04:31 <AxelPolleres> http://www.w3.org/2009/sparql/meeting/2009-06-09 14:04:45 <bglimm> ... any objections? or additions? 14:05:03 <bglimm> ... nothing, so the minutes are approved 14:05:22 <bglimm> Alex: I am listed, but I wasn't there 14:05:44 <AxelPolleres> PROPOSED: Approve minutes with Alex being removed from the attendees list. 14:06:10 <AxelPolleres> ACTION: Axel Eric to update minutes 14:06:10 <trackbot> Created ACTION-41 - Eric to update minutes [on Axel Polleres - due 2009-06-23]. 14:06:38 <bglimm> AxelPolleres: Can we approve it with the amendments? 14:06:39 <AxelPolleres> RESOLVED: Approve minutes with Alex being removed from the attendees list. 14:06:47 <AlexPassant> regrets for 2009-06-09 are there actually: http://www.w3.org/2009/sparql/meeting/2009-06-02 14:07:07 <bglimm> AxelPolleres: next meeting is in one week, 23rd June same time 14:07:34 <KjetilK> Zakim, unmute me 14:07:34 <Zakim> KjetilK should no longer be muted 14:07:49 <bglimm> ... scribe for next week: KjetilK 14:08:00 <KjetilK> Zakim, mute me 14:08:00 <Zakim> KjetilK should now be muted 14:08:04 <SimonS> Regrets for next week. I will be travelling, maybe I can join on IRC 14:08:01 <bglimm> topic: Liasions 14:08:28 <bglimm> AxelPolleres: Bijan is not here, so no news from OWL and no news from RIF 14:08:37 <bglimm> .. no news from liasons today 14:08:43 <bglimm> topic: actions 14:09:08 <bglimm> AxelPolleres: we some open actions: 16 on LeeF continious 14:09:15 <Zakim> +[IPcaller] 14:09:24 <bglimm> ... action 17 on Steve 14:09:35 <bglimm> Steve: I think that is obsolete now 14:09:58 <bglimm> AxelPolleres: Action 19 on Ivan is open 14:10:21 <bglimm> Orri: What is that action? 14:10:32 <AndyS> """Send to the mailing list a few example cases (data, query, results) of SELECT queries in FILTERs""" 14:10:34 <bglimm> AxelPolleres: We have to look that up in the minutes 14:11:01 <bglimm> ... Action 28 is continued and action 32 on Simon is open 14:11:09 <bglimm> Simon: Action 32 should be completed 14:11:25 <bglimm> AxelPolleres: Action 36 is completed 14:11:44 <bglimm> ... Action 37 is completed 14:11:44 <kasei> action-38 can be closed, and is on the agenda for later 14:12:00 <kasei> Zakim, unmute me 14:12:00 <Zakim> kasei should no longer be muted 14:12:21 <bglimm> ... Action 38 on Greg is completed and can be closed 14:12:25 <kasei> Zakim, mute me 14:12:25 <Zakim> kasei should now be muted 14:12:35 <bglimm> ... we have 2 open actions to review the F&R docs 14:12:45 <bglimm> ... we leave this open for now 14:12:55 <bglimm> ... action review is done 14:13:02 <bglimm> Topic: F&R Document 14:13:07 <KjetilK> Zakim, unmute me 14:13:07 <Zakim> KjetilK should no longer be muted 14:13:26 <bglimm> kjetilK: We just 2 things open 14:13:36 <bglimm> ... the short name and the introduction 14:13:59 <bglimm> ... we have the project description 14:14:15 <bglimm> ... SteveH couldn't finish his review 14:14:35 <bglimm> ... whether Chime has reviewed is not known 14:14:40 <AxelPolleres> q? 14:15:03 <bglimm> AxelPolleres: Lets look at the open issues for this 14:15:10 <bglimm> ... short name first 14:15:12 <AxelPolleres> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-dawg/2009AprJun/0383.html 14:15:21 <AxelPolleres> http://www.w3.org/TR/sparql-features/ 14:15:38 <bglimm> ... proposal was to use the name SPARQL Features 14:15:54 <bglimm> ... but this has no version number 14:16:06 <bglimm> ... any opinions? 14:16:53 <bglimm> AndyS: Can we ask the team contact and ask what is the standard 14:17:19 <bglimm> AxelPolleres: They are not here at the moment 14:17:21 <AndyS> e.g. TR/xpath-datamodel/ -- no version number (and it's xpath 2.0) 14:17:39 <bglimm> ... I can ask the team contact 14:17:45 <AndyS> but /TR/xmlschema-2/ 14:17:54 <AxelPolleres> ACTION: Axel to ask team contacts whether http://www.w3.org/TR/sparql-features/ is ok 14:17:54 <trackbot> Created ACTION-42 - Ask team contacts whether http://www.w3.org/TR/sparql-features/ is ok [on Axel Polleres - due 2009-06-23]. 14:18:12 <KjetilK> +1 14:18:22 <bglimm> AxelPolleres: Can I propose to go with that name unless there is some objection from the team contact? 14:18:29 <bglimm> ... do we need a backup solution 14:18:32 <bglimm> ... ? 14:18:48 <AxelPolleres> PROPOSED: F&R will be published under http://www.w3.org/TR/sparql-features/ unless there are concerns from the team-contacts. 14:19:10 <AxelPolleres> RESOLVED: F&R will be published under http://www.w3.org/TR/sparql-features/ unless there are concerns from the team-contacts. 14:19:12 <bglimm> AxelPolleres: Lets ressolve this and see 14:19:51 <bglimm> ... My concern is that the previous versions said RDF SPARQL and not just SPARQL 14:20:23 <SteveH> lets delagate 14:20:27 <KjetilK> +1 14:20:29 <bglimm> ... I think we can go with that for now 14:20:57 <bglimm> AndyS: your resolution says that the doc will be published like that, so that might cause a problem 14:21:01 <AndyS> NB we have not decided to publish yet 14:21:19 <bglimm> AxelPolleres: So should I change the resolution? 14:22:04 <AxelPolleres> PROPOSED: in case of concerns, leave the naming decision to team contacts. 14:22:25 <bglimm> .... is it ok to leave it to the team contact for the naming issues? 14:22:30 <bglimm> ... any objections? 14:22:36 <AxelPolleres> RESOLVED: in case of concerns, leave the naming decision to team contacts. 14:22:46 <bglimm> ... So, there are none and I suggest to resolve this 14:22:54 <bglimm> Topic: Introduction 14:23:08 <bglimm> AxelPolleres: Did you incorporate what was on the wiki? 14:23:26 <bglimm> KjetilK: I havn't, but there was nothing substantial 14:23:26 <AxelPolleres> http://www.w3.org/2009/sparql/wiki/Features_Introduction_strawman 14:24:03 <bglimm> AxelPolleres: I looked over it. It is not a substantial change. It is mostly to reorder some parts 14:24:36 <bglimm> ... also there are links to the resolutions and I was hoping that this fulfils Andy's concern about the timestamp feature 14:24:52 <AxelPolleres> q? 14:25:24 <bglimm> AxelPolleres: Would such a reordering be ok? 14:25:33 <AlexPassant> q+ 14:25:40 <bglimm> ... if there are no objections, I propose to change it like that. 14:26:06 <bglimm> AlexPassant: I would like to keep 1.1 and the structure of the documents 14:26:38 <AxelPolleres> ACTION: Alex to adopt http://www.w3.org/2009/sparql/wiki/Features_Introduction_strawman with two subsections. 14:26:38 <trackbot> Created ACTION-43 - Adopt http://www.w3.org/2009/sparql/wiki/Features_Introduction_strawman with two subsections. [on Alexandre Passant - due 2009-06-23]. 14:26:46 <bglimm> AxelPolleres: I will give you an action to adapt the document 14:27:07 <bglimm> ... any more objections? 14:27:20 <bglimm> ... none, so lets do that. 14:27:27 <bglimm> ... next, examples 14:27:49 <AxelPolleres> http://www.w3.org/2009/sparql/wiki/Feature:ProjectExpressions 14:28:17 <bglimm> KjetilK: I took text from the wiki and put it in the document 14:28:24 <AxelPolleres> http://www.w3.org/2009/sparql/docs/features/#Project_expressions 14:28:28 <bglimm> AxelPolleres: Let's have a look 14:28:35 <KjetilK> http://www.w3.org/2009/sparql/docs/features/#Project_expressions_syntax 14:29:04 <bglimm> ... should the construct with expressions be left in, for the moment it was 14:29:26 <bijan> bijan has joined #sparql 14:29:27 <bglimm> ... it should be clear that this is not the complex expressions 14:29:49 <bglimm> ... Did you include the implementations list? 14:30:05 <bglimm> kjetilK: I havn't included that 14:30:32 <Zakim> +??P55 14:30:35 <bglimm> ... it seems that the doc is not self-contained with many links 14:30:37 <bijan> zakim, ??P55 is me 14:30:37 <Zakim> +bijan; got it 14:30:48 <bglimm> AxelPolleres: So you don't have any? 14:31:03 <AndyS> Checking F&O: fn:concat --> fn:string-join 14:31:05 <AxelPolleres> (simon was asking) 14:31:16 <AndyS> fn:concat implies a cast, string-join does not 14:31:36 <bglimm> AxelPolleres: There are some implementations listed, so should we unify that? 14:31:59 <KjetilK> AndyS: fixed :-) 14:32:18 <AxelPolleres> http://www.w3.org/2009/sparql/docs/features/#Negation 14:32:23 <bglimm> ... there are some concerns about an example in the negations subsection 14:32:30 <bglimm> .. any opinions? 14:32:39 <bglimm> ... Kjetil have you seen that email 14:32:49 <SteveH> It needs a 2nd example 14:32:54 <bglimm> kjetilK: I saw it and thought about it a bit 14:33:16 <bglimm> AxelPolleres: what we need is an approval of Andy because he raised the concerns? 14:33:28 <bglimm> AndyS: Which change? 14:33:38 <kasei> small typo in 2.3.3: "does not no anyone" shoudl be "does not know anyone" 14:33:47 <bglimm> AxelPolleres: In the negation section. 14:34:23 <bglimm> AndyS: The wording says syntax, but we actually make deeper changes 14:34:38 <kasei> I think it is strange to show an example from SeRQL for negation when there are existing SPARQL approaches... 14:35:02 <AndyS> agree with kasei 14:35:12 <AndyS> Use his impl as example. 14:35:17 <AxelPolleres> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-dawg/2009AprJun/0379.html 14:35:18 <SimonS> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-dawg/2009AprJun/0379.html 14:35:35 <bglimm> AxelPolleres: I just pasted the relevant mail 14:35:37 <KjetilK> Zakim, mute me 14:35:37 <Zakim> KjetilK should now be muted 14:36:16 <kasei> +1 to the rewording 14:36:18 <bglimm> AndyS: I think the new wording is better 14:37:26 <bglimm> AxelPolleres: Is the rewording for the second part fine too? 14:37:31 <KjetilK> yes 14:37:35 <AlexPassant> +1 14:37:48 <bglimm> ... There is a second part to this 14:38:02 <bglimm> ... there was a concern that only the minor system is mentioned 14:38:21 <bglimm> ... I am not sure which systems implement UNSAID? I think only ARQ. 14:38:27 <KjetilK> committed :-) 14:38:34 <kasei> I support UNSAID 14:38:56 <AxelPolleres> Orri: NOT EXISTS for SQL 14:39:17 <bglimm> ... we would need to rewrite it as NOT EXISTS in SQL syntax 14:39:40 <bglimm> AndyS: Are there any examples in the wiki pages? 14:39:48 <SimonS> http://www.w3.org/2009/sparql/wiki/Design:Negation 14:40:01 <SimonS> q+ 14:40:10 <bglimm> AxelPolleres: I would like to see an example like the other one, expression the same thing as the other one 14:40:16 <AlexPassant> Zakim: ack me 14:40:19 <AlexPassant> q- 14:40:49 <AxelPolleres> ACTION: Orri to mail NOT EXISTS example. 14:40:49 <trackbot> Created ACTION-44 - Mail NOT EXISTS example. [on Orri Erling - due 2009-06-23]. 14:40:49 <bglimm> Orri: I can mail an example 14:40:51 <kasei> the UNSAID example in the referenced email will work in RDF::Query as-is. 14:42:15 <AlexPassant> I was not actuall 14:42:16 <AxelPolleres> ack AlexPassant 14:42:18 <SimonS> Zakim, ack me 14:42:18 <Zakim> I see no one on the speaker queue 14:43:01 <bglimm> AxelPolleres: Orri will mal an example 14:43:10 <bglimm> Orri: I can do that now. 14:43:22 <KjetilK> Zakim, unmute me 14:43:22 <Zakim> KjetilK should no longer be muted 14:43:34 <bglimm> AxelPolleres: kjetil or Alex can you adopt that in the document? 14:43:42 <AxelPolleres> ACTION: adopt NOT EXISTS running example in F&R 14:43:42 <trackbot> Sorry, couldn't find user - adopt 14:44:05 <bglimm> ... where is Kasei's example? 14:44:05 <kasei> Zakim, unmute me 14:44:05 <Zakim> kasei should no longer be muted 14:44:20 <bglimm> Kasei: It's in the mail and in other places 14:44:41 <AxelPolleres> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-dawg/2009AprJun/0379.html 14:44:50 <kasei> Zakim, mute me 14:44:50 <Zakim> kasei should now be muted 14:44:58 <AxelPolleres> Kasei: UNSAID works with Kasei's implementation 14:45:00 <AndyS> http://www.w3.org/2009/sparql/wiki/Feature:Negation#Example 14:45:11 <AndyS> first example 14:45:34 <AxelPolleres> ACTION: Kjetil to adopt one more additional syntaxe UNSAID or NOT EXISTS for negation 14:45:35 <trackbot> Created ACTION-45 - Adopt one more additional syntaxe UNSAID or NOT EXISTS for negation [on Kjetil Kjernsmo - due 2009-06-23]. 14:45:57 <bglimm> AxelPolleres: Until when can this be done? 14:46:06 <bglimm> kjetilK: I think immediately 14:46:29 <bglimm> AxelPolleres: If we have all these actions done, we need approval by two more people. 14:46:57 <AndyS_> AndyS_ has joined #sparql 14:47:04 <bglimm> ... We can still propose to publish, given that these reviews are positive given that it is a draft 14:47:35 <bglimm> ... So I need two reviewers 14:47:52 <bglimm> ... Steve, when could you look over the documents? 14:47:59 <bglimm> SteveH: early next week 14:48:00 <kasei> (very loud typing noises... bglimm, is that you?) 14:48:15 <bglimm> AxelPolleres: Could anybody do that earlier. 14:48:29 <bglimm> Simon: I can also do that early next week 14:48:31 <AxelPolleres> ACTION: Simon to review F&R 14:48:31 <trackbot> Created ACTION-46 - Review F&R [on Simon Schenk - due 2009-06-23]. 14:49:19 <bglimm> AxelPolleres: Kjetil can you incorporate the changes today after the meeting? 14:49:23 <bglimm> KjetilK: yes 14:49:39 <bglimm> AxelPolleres: So next week we can decide whether we can publish or not 14:49:56 <bglimm> ... is there anything more on F&R 14:50:24 <AxelPolleres> Postpone decision to next telecon (hopefully really ONLY the decision) 14:51:40 <AxelPolleres> ACTION: Axel to ask team contact to approve patent text (currently commented in the document). 14:51:40 <trackbot> Created ACTION-47 - Ask team contact to approve patent text (currently commented in the document). [on Axel Polleres - due 2009-06-23]. 14:52:16 <bglimm> AxelPolleres: nothing else? No, so lets move on. 14:52:28 <bglimm> ... to Service Descriptions 14:52:33 <AxelPolleres> topic: service descriptions 14:52:34 <AxelPolleres> http://www.w3.org/2009/sparql/wiki/Feature:ServiceDescriptions 14:52:52 <KjetilK> Zakim, mute me 14:52:52 <Zakim> KjetilK should now be muted 14:52:52 <bglimm> ... last week two actions were completed on this 14:53:10 <kasei> Zakim, unmute me 14:53:10 <Zakim> kasei should no longer be muted 14:53:25 <bglimm> ... Greg, can you tell us what you did? 14:53:26 <AxelPolleres> http://www.w3.org/2009/sparql/track/actions/38 14:53:35 <bglimm> Greg: I have posted a list on the wiki 14:53:48 <AxelPolleres> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-dawg/2009AprJun/0380.html 14:53:49 <bglimm> ... with things I suggest should be standardised 14:55:13 <AndyS> q+ to ask about SPARQL/1.0 (minor) 14:56:17 <AxelPolleres> ack AndyS 14:56:17 <Zakim> AndyS, you wanted to ask about SPARQL/1.0 (minor) 14:56:38 <bglimm> AndyS: we need to put the version number of the SPARQL features in 14:57:10 <AxelPolleres> q+ to ask whether default should be SPARQL 1.0 14:57:52 <AndyS> ack me 14:58:25 <bglimm> AxelPolleres: Can we have an assumption that SPARQL 1.0 is the default 14:58:31 <SimonS> Sounds like a chicken and egg problem: Need SPARQL/1.1 to say I am a SPARQL/1.0 endpoint 14:58:38 <SteveH> +1 to no defaulting 14:58:51 <bglimm> AndyS: I don't think. If the system does not say anything, then it is not supporting any particular version 14:59:10 <AxelPolleres> seems agreement that no default behavior should be assumed/defined. 14:59:38 <bglimm> ... Greg, do you have an example for the connection RI? 14:59:58 <AndyS> +1 to naming all built-ins with URIs. 14:59:59 <bglimm> Greg: for new features, such as aggregate functions, it makes sense to give them new URI's 15:00:36 <bglimm> ... at the moment we don't have URIs for all features 15:01:07 <bglimm> Greg: I think there was support for using URIs instead of keywords 15:01:29 <bglimm> AxelPolleres: should we have URIs for libraries or URIs for all features? 15:01:32 <AndyS> and that they should work as a function call. Except BOUND, || and && which are not strict functions (they are technically special forms) 15:01:51 <bglimm> Greg: That might depend on the decision of whether or not we will have function libraries 15:02:02 <AndyS> Axel: do we want also to name libraries? 15:02:21 <AxelPolleres> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-dawg/2009AprJun/0380.html 15:02:26 <bglimm> AxelPolleres: We are running out of time, so we might have to contibnue this discussion on mail. 15:02:49 <bglimm> ... I have to talk to Lee on how we proceed now and where we continue 15:03:14 <bglimm> ... whether we should focus on the features or whether we should flesh out the time allowed features in the F&R document 15:03:34 <bglimm> ... Any other things for the agenda? 15:03:45 <Zakim> -[IPcaller] 15:03:46 <bglimm> ... No, so see you next week. 15:03:59 <AxelPolleres> Thanks all! 17:23:18 <Zakim> Zakim has left #sparql # SPECIAL MARKER FOR CHATSYNC. DO NOT EDIT THIS LINE OR BELOW. SRCLINESUSED=00000353