Chatlog 2009-06-23

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, ivanh, iv_an_ru, bglimm, chimezie, Kjetil, AxelPolleres, Andy, Steve, LukeWM, kasei, pgearon, SimonKJ, Prateek, John-l
13:57:25 <trackbot> Meeting: SPARQL Working Group Teleconference
13:57:25 <trackbot>  Date: 23 June 2009
13:57:43 <LeeF> Chair: AxelPolleres
13:57:58 <LeeF> Agenda:
14:03:42 <LeeF> Scribenick: john-l
<LeeF> topic: Introductions
14:03:38 <john-l> SimonKJ: I'm the primary IBM representative.
14:04:06 <john-l> ... I've been working in the Rational group, on a new RDF-based platform, for 4 years.
14:04:42 <john-l> ... We rely heavily on SPARQL, and are very interested in standardizing useful new features as a result.
14:05:07 <john-l> ... We are primarily interested in aggregates, and in updates (in the longer term).
<LeeF> topic: Admin
14:07:05 <AxelPolleres>
14:07:33 <LeeF> RESOLVED: Accept last week's minutes at
14:07:54 <ivanh> regrets for next week, will be at a Dagstuhl workshop
14:08:09 <john-l> LeeF: Kjetil can probably scribe next week.
14:08:25 <john-l> AxelPolleres: Anything new with our liasons?
14:08:27 <ivanh> q+
14:08:42 <AxelPolleres> ack ivanh
14:08:48 <john-l> ivanh: OWL 2 is now in CR.
14:09:13 <john-l> LeeF: That includes rdf:text?
14:09:16 <john-l> ivanh: Yes.
14:09:19 <bglimm>  rdf:text is now rdf:PlainLiteral in OWL 2
14:09:38 <LeeF> thanks, bglimm, i couldn't remember what the new name was :)
14:10:04 <john-l> Ivanh: We now have a chair for the RDB2RDF WG.
<LeeF> topic: Actions
14:10:57 <AxelPolleres>
14:11:18 <john-l> AxelPolleres: Can we close any of these actions?
14:11:45 <john-l> LeeF: I need to swap back in to work on action 16.
14:13:32 <LeeF> trackbot, close ACTION-42
14:13:32 <trackbot> ACTION-42 Ask team contacts whether is ok closed
14:14:30 <LeeF>  ACTION-44: see
14:14:30 <trackbot> ACTION-44 Mail NOT EXISTS example. notes added
14:14:37 <LeeF> trackbot, close ACTION-44
14:14:37 <trackbot> ACTION-44 Mail NOT EXISTS example. closed
14:14:46 <SteveH_> I would like to consider action 40 closed!
<LeeF> topic: F&R document
14:15:07 <john-l> AxelPolleres: We had two F&R questions: first, the short name for the document.
14:15:40 <john-l> ivanh: We need to ask the domain admin for a green light on the desired short name.
14:16:32 <john-l> The group discusses whether we need SPARQL versioning in the short name.
14:16:58 <LeeF>
14:17:40 <LeeF> ACTION: Herman to request sparql-features as short name from Thomas R
14:17:40 <trackbot> Created ACTION-48 - Request sparql-features as short name from Thomas R [on ivanh Herman - due 2009-06-30].
14:18:31 <chimezie> chimezie has joined #sparql
14:18:58 <Zakim> +Chimezie_Ogbuji
14:19:33 <john-l> chimezie: I haven't been able to review the F&R yet.
14:20:03 <john-l> AxelPolleres: I think the remaining issues with the F&R document are small.
14:20:11 <AxelPolleres>
14:20:47 <SteveH_> q+ to talk about very confusing CONSTRUCT example in subselect section
14:21:20 <john-l> SteveH_: The CONSTRUCT example is not germane and confusing.
14:21:26 <AndyS> We agreed not to use it last week didn't we?
14:21:33 <SteveH_> I thought so
14:21:57 <SteveH_> 2.4.3
14:22:18 <john-l> SteveH_: In section 2.4.3.
14:22:35 <john-l> LeeF: I also agree with striking that example.
14:22:39 <Zakim> -iv_an_ru
14:22:43 <AxelPolleres> alternatively, analogously to the SELECT example from before, we can use a subquery with project expressions for this query 
14:22:45 <iv_an_ru> (oops)
14:23:08 <SteveH_>
14:23:32 <SteveH_> suggestion is to remove first CONSTRUCT example
14:23:49 <john-l> LeeF: I think including it in the document at this point goes too far.
14:23:58 <AxelPolleres> PROPOSED:  remove all below "To return an RDF graph..." in section 2.4.3
14:24:29 <AndyS> Remove just example "CONSTRUCT { ?x foaf:name { fn:string-join(?gn, " ", ?sn) } }
14:24:29 <AndyS> "
14:25:48 <iv_an_ru> I don't like syntax of CONSTRUCT { ?x foaf:name { fn:string-join(?gn, " ", ?sn) } } but I'd keep it.
14:26:25 <iv_an_ru> (we have CONSTRUCT { ?x foaf:name ` fn:string-join(?gn, " ", ?sn) ` } , maybe not the best variant too)
14:26:27 <john-l> AxelPolleres: We need to remove the offending example and tweak the words to match.
14:26:45 <SteveH_> "To return an RDF graph where the first and family names are concatenated to a full name such project expressions could be used"
14:26:49 <SteveH_> suggestion ^
14:27:27 <john-l> AxelPolleres: Any objections?
14:27:53 <AxelPolleres> PROPOSED: reword to "To return an RDF graph where the first and family names are concatenated to a full name such project expressions could be used" and remove first CONSTRUCT example in 2.4.3
14:28:07 <AxelPolleres> RESOLVED: reword to "To return an RDF graph where the first and family names are concatenated to a full name such project expressions could be used" and remove first CONSTRUCT example in 2.4.3
14:28:19 <AndyS> It is "advice to the editors" isn't it?
14:28:29 <SteveH_> yes
14:28:57 <john-l> AxelPolleres: We've already taken care of 1 and 2 from the 8 points.
14:29:33 <AxelPolleres>
14:29:49 <AndyS>
14:30:03 <john-l> AxelPolleres: We should take the list of implementors of aggregate expressions from the ESW wiki.
14:30:24 <AxelPolleres>
14:30:37 <SteveH> SteveH has joined #sparql
14:30:48 <john-l> AxelPolleres: Take the existing lists from other pages and paste them into the document.
14:31:34 <AndyS> without the CONSTRUCT case (it's about being concise and focued on select expressions)
14:31:35 <john-l> ivanh: What policy should we have for adding implementations?  Should we try to be exhaustive?
14:31:54 <AxelPolleres> "The following non-exhaustive list includes some systems addressing this feature"
14:32:04 <ivanh> s/ivanh/Kjetil/
14:32:26 <LeeF> I share some of Kjetil's concerns
14:32:56 <SteveH> The document will be dated, I don't see the problem
14:33:04 <LeeF> Better to include implementations purely as examples, rather than try to make a comprehensive list
14:33:05 <AndyS> Not exhaustive - but the charter talsk about common extensions and experience which is relevant.
14:33:13 <AndyS> +1 to LeeF
14:33:16 <iv_an_ru> No need to be exaustive, if we're in ;)
14:33:18 <SteveH> yes, not exhastive
14:33:26 <LeeF> what iv_an_ru says is exactly the problem :/
14:33:34 <LeeF> this isn't an Implementation Report
14:34:14 <iv_an_ru> I'd choose two implementations per feature, using "similarity to the spec" as a criterion.
14:34:19 <john-l> AxelPolleres: Would anyone object to having a non-exhaustive implementation list?
14:34:54 <SteveH> iv_an_ru: there is no spec at this point
14:34:58 <john-l> KjetilK: I object; I'm concerned about the persistence of the URIs.
14:35:29 <ivanh> q+
14:35:33 <SteveH> q-
14:35:37 <AndyS> Yes
14:35:41 <AndyS> q+
14:35:45 <iv_an_ru> well, what we've specified fo "approximate" syntax and semantics resembles a spec.
14:35:47 <pgearon> I'd like to see the list left
14:35:48 <LeeF> q- SteveH_
14:36:45 <AxelPolleres> "The following non-exhaustive list includes some systems addressing this feature at the date of publication of the present document"
14:36:49 <john-l> ivanh: The text needs to make it clear that the implementation list could rapidly become out-of-date.
14:37:16 <john-l> ... Also, it needs to emphasize that an up-to-date list *is* maintained on the Wiki.
14:38:05 <SteveH> I don't feel that the document stands on it's own sufficiently if it requires liks to the WG wiki
14:38:11 <SteveH> to justify itsself
14:38:14 <LeeF> Link to which wiki? ESW presumably since it outlives the WG wiki?
14:38:17 <SteveH> +1
14:38:38 <iv_an_ru> +1 for ESW
14:38:54 <SteveH> +1, I also think the docs lifetime is similar to the WGs
14:38:55 <john-l> AndyS: I think the F&R doc only has a limited span of usefulness, so I don't worry about the deep future so much.
14:39:11 <LukeWM> q+
14:39:33 <john-l> AndyS: I would put the links in.
14:39:44 <SimonKJ> +1
14:39:44 <LukeWM> ack me
14:39:52 <AndyS> We are required to have: "shown to exist in multiple, interoperable implementations" so useful info towards that
14:39:53 <ivanh> ack ivanh
14:39:55 <AndyS> ack me
14:40:12 <SimonKJ> q+
14:40:46 <john-l> LukeWM: Do we still need complex use-cases, with more than one feature, for the F&R?
14:40:53 <LukeWM> 
14:41:47 <LeeF> Pretty sure it wasn't me requesting them :-D
14:42:01 <john-l> AxelPolleres: Is there any objection to going to FPWD without the list of complex use-cases?
14:42:08 <LukeWM> sorry LeeF, you're right, it wasn't
14:42:13 <AxelPolleres> Consensus is not to add complex use cases before publishing FPWD
14:42:23 <pgearon> +1
14:44:46 <john-l> AxelPolleres: We discussed the modeling of UNSAID without an actual negation feature in SPARQL 1.0 on the mailing list.
14:45:09 <john-l> SteveH: I think we can continue with the feature described as is.
14:45:31 <AxelPolleres> 4) in my mail, doesn't need a todo.
14:46:31 <john-l> AxelPolleres: #5 is just a typo.
14:48:19 <john-l> SteveH: Adding the TODO to address #6 is fine.
14:50:04 <john-l> AxelPolleres: I suggest no changes to the doc in response to #7.
14:50:20 <SimonKJ> q+
14:50:52 <LeeF> ack SimonKJ
14:51:07 <john-l> SimonKJ: We also support a protocol update, and I'll try to dig out a reference.
14:51:24 <SimonKJ> IBM's Jazz Foundation supports graph update via a RESTful protocol
14:51:30 <SimonKJ> I'll try and find a persistent reference
14:51:54 <john-l> AxelPolleres: I suggest adding references to these existing implementations to the list for emphasis.
14:52:24 <john-l> AxelPolleres: Is there anything else that would prevent going to FPWD?
14:52:36 <SteveH> +1
14:52:48 <SteveH> ivanh
14:52:57 <john-l> ivanh: I think we should make all the above changes and then make a decision.
14:52:58 <LeeF> too many changes to do conditionally, I thi nk
14:53:03 <LeeF> s/thi nk/think
14:53:07 <pgearon> I agree with ivanh
14:53:45 <AndyS_> AndyS_ has joined #sparql
14:53:59 <AndyS> It's FPWD - can be a bit rough.  Early is good.  "It's agree to publish" not "agree with every detail"
14:54:30 <john-l> LeeF: Let's make the changes, then at the beginning of the next meeting determine if there is any outstanding hesitation.
14:54:38 <john-l> AxelPolleres: It'll also be good to have outstanding reviews completed.
14:54:38 <AndyS> q+
14:54:45 <LeeF> ack AndyS
14:55:13 <SteveH> my action is still open too, for some reason
14:55:13 <john-l> AndyS: Make changes and have reviews?
14:55:30 <LeeF> trackbot, close ACTION-40
14:55:30 <trackbot> ACTION-40 Review F&R document closed
14:55:37 <LeeF> SteveH, i don't know what you're talking about
14:55:39 <LeeF> ;-)
14:55:48 <SteveH> LeeF, the human Zakim :)
14:57:06 <john-l> Axel arranges for serializing the updates and the reviews.
14:58:22 <ivanh> q+
14:58:53 <john-l> ivanh: I need to finalize the charter for phase 2.
14:59:20 <john-l> ivanh: The charter should include every feature, including the time permitting features.  They don't need detailed descriptions, though.
14:59:26 <AndyS> See section 1.1?
14:59:29 <LeeF>
14:59:54 <LeeF> q+
14:59:58 <LeeF> ack ivanh
15:00:14 <LeeF> q+ to hopefully resolve this easily
15:01:13 <iv_an_ru> iv_an_ru has joined #sparql
15:01:43 <john-l> LeeF: I will take an action to draft text for all of the time permitting features by Thursday.
15:02:01 <AxelPolleres> ACTION: LeeF to draft short descriptions for time-permitting features
15:02:01 <trackbot> Created ACTION-49 - Draft short descriptions for time-permitting features [on Lee Feigenbaum - due 2009-06-30].
15:02:55 <john-l> AxelPolleres: LeeF can try to hand off his work to KjetilK for his edits.
15:02:55 <john-l> AxelPolleres: Adjourned.