Chatlog 2010-05-04

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.

13:48:45 <RRSAgent> RRSAgent has joined #sparql
13:48:45 <RRSAgent> logging to
13:48:47 <trackbot> RRSAgent, make logs world
13:48:47 <Zakim> Zakim has joined #sparql
13:48:49 <trackbot> Zakim, this will be 77277
13:48:49 <Zakim> ok, trackbot; I see SW_(SPARQL)10:00AM scheduled to start in 12 minutes
13:48:50 <LeeF> zakim, this will be SPARQL
13:48:50 <trackbot> Meeting: SPARQL Working Group Teleconference
13:48:50 <trackbot> Date: 04 May 2010
13:48:51 <Zakim> ok, LeeF; I see SW_(SPARQL)10:00AM scheduled to start in 12 minutes
13:48:52 <LeeF> Chair: LeeF
13:48:57 <LeeF> Scribenick: ivan
13:49:09 <LeeF> Regrets: AxelPolleres, SteveH, dcharboneau2
13:49:30 <LeeF> Agenda:
13:57:21 <Prateek> Prateek has joined #sparql
13:57:47 <MattPerry> MattPerry has joined #sparql
13:58:05 <Zakim> SW_(SPARQL)10:00AM has now started
13:58:12 <Zakim> +pgearon
13:58:56 <Zakim> +kasei
13:59:06 <chimezie> chimezie has joined #sparql
13:59:20 <Zakim> +Lee_Feigenbaum
13:59:49 <Zakim> +MattPerry
14:00:00 <ivan> zakim, dial ivan-voip
14:00:02 <Zakim> ok, ivan; the call is being made
14:00:08 <Zakim> +Ivan
14:00:14 <Zakim> +??P14
14:00:20 <AndyS> zakim, ??P14 is me
14:00:20 <Zakim> +AndyS; got it
14:02:05 <LeeF> zakim, who's on the phone?
14:02:05 <Zakim> On the phone I see pgearon, kasei, Lee_Feigenbaum, MattPerry, Ivan, AndyS
14:03:19 <ivan> scribenick:ivan
14:03:28 <Zakim> +??P27
14:03:34 <LeeF> minutes from last week:
14:03:59 <LeeF> zakim, ??P27 is Orri
14:03:59 <Zakim> +Orri; got it
14:04:19 <OlivierCorby> OlivierCorby has joined #sparql
14:05:28 <Zakim> +OlivierCorby
14:06:27 <LeeF> Regrets: Axel, Steve, dcharboneau, Souri, Sandro
14:06:48 <LeeF> PROPOSED: Approve minutes from
14:06:51 <ivan> LeeF: anybody concerns with minutes of last week?
14:06:55 <ivan> ... 1
14:06:57 <ivan> .... 2
14:07:00 <ivan> .... 3
14:07:04 <ivan> .... 4
14:07:21 <ivan> ... discussions about variables, queries, next round of documents...
14:07:31 <LeeF> RESOLVED: Approve minutes from
14:07:41 <LeeF> Next meeting: 2010-05-11 @ 15:00 UK / 10:00 EST (scribe: Sandro) 
14:07:45 <Zakim> +chimezie
14:07:56 <chimezie> Zakim, mute me
14:07:56 <Zakim> chimezie should now be muted
14:08:24 <ivan> Lee: other admin issues
14:08:32 <ivan> ... couple of comments, they are taken care of
14:08:35 <ivan> ... same for actions
14:08:43 <ivan> ... any questions on those?
14:08:51 <ivan> (no reply from anybody...)
14:09:13 <ivan> Other wgs: RDB2RDF WG finalizing UCR document
14:09:24 <ivan> eGov- anybody has questions?
14:09:26 <ivan> q+
14:09:30 <LeeF> ack ivan
14:10:34 <ivan> topic: update on sparql update (sic!)
14:10:53 <ivan> Lee: seeking immediate feedback
14:11:01 <ivan> ... or get people to look online
14:11:16 <ivan> s/online/at offline/
14:12:30 <LeeF> topic: Recent additions/updates to SPARQL Update
14:12:55 <ivan> LeeF: issue is the update model
14:13:01 <ivan> ... what the underlying formalism is
14:14:07 <kasei> 61
14:14:22 <kasei> i think 61#
14:14:49 <kasei> 60# i think
14:15:00 <kasei> 1 and 0, on and off if I remember right.
14:15:47 <ivan> ... are those the significant issues to the spec?
14:16:30 <LeeF> update model is at:
14:16:37 <ivan> pgearon: the other part was the conversation we had on how we should datasets in insert and delete statements
14:16:53 <ivan> ... the keywords were not really appropriate for this
14:16:59 <ivan> ... we wanted to avoid ambiguity
14:17:07 <LeeF> (keywords FROM and FROM NAMED are confusing with DELETE)
14:17:10 <ivan> ... at the same time nobody wanted to use new keywords
14:17:36 <ivan> ... USING and USING NAMES came up as a semi-consensus suggestion, I put it in the document
14:18:07 <ivan> LeeF: and the update model, how final do you think it is, do you expect to go deeper?
14:18:29 <ivan> pgearon: if we go further we might end up enforcing things on implementations and turn them invalid
14:18:44 <ivan> ... i do not see that coming any time soon, but it is a danger
14:18:55 <ivan> ... maybe a little more than what we have now is fine, but not much
14:19:12 <ivan> ... so long as it is internally consistent the level of details we have is on the right track
14:19:23 <ivan> ... i mostly copied the points that were on the wiki
14:19:39 <AndyS> If the impls have different outcomes on the same spec, surely the spec is not accurate enough.
14:19:42 <ivan> (discussions whether that page was done by lee, he does not believe that...)
14:20:11 <ivan> LeeF: to be clear on what has been put in
14:20:28 <Zakim> -Orri
14:20:29 <ivan> ... using and using names are synonymous with from and from names, but with different keywords?
14:20:32 <ivan> pgearon: yes
14:20:55 <LeeF> """ If a USING clause appears, then this will override any effect that WITH may have on the WHERE clause, and only the WHERE clause."""
14:21:59 <ivan> LeeF: i guess of this agenda topic was to point out this issue
14:22:02 <ivan> ... and changes
14:22:13 <ivan> ... we can close the corresponding issue
14:22:24 <ivan> ... we may have people review the document to see if this is the final design
14:22:27 <LeeF> trackbot, close ACTION-206
14:22:27 <trackbot> ACTION-206 Coordinate with Paul, Steve, and Andy to form a coherent proposal re: datasets, FROM, FROM NAMED, WITH, default-graph-uri, and named-graph-uri closed
14:22:34 <AndyS> Why doesn't USING apply to DELETE template WHERE pattern and similarly INSERT on their own?
14:22:43 <ivan> LeeF: anybody any questions?
14:22:57 <ivan> ... otherwise people should take a look at them and comment
14:23:37 <LeeF> pgearon: in answer to Andy, it should apply there as well, oversight
14:23:38 <ivan> pgearon: because I was not thorough enough:-( and I will have to put in the right words...
14:24:32 <ivan> AndyS: i was more worried when you were talk about the update model to avoid implementations to change... (scribe lost)
14:25:00 <ivan> pgearon: I am not really sure on how much more details are required
14:25:16 <ivan> ... eg, in general, do you have any formalism on how update work
14:25:29 <ivan> AndyS: no, because I will have to change my implementation on what the spec says:-)
14:25:50 <ivan> pgearon: what we have now are more general guidelines rather than being formal
14:26:11 <ivan> LeeF: my gut feeling is that we will need something more detailed, but I am not sure how much
14:26:37 <ivan> ... when we begin to collect test cases we will know more by following the spec in more details
14:26:43 <ivan> ... we will know then if we have a good enough model
14:27:02 <ivan> ... we will have to rely on the query algebra, but we will not know until we are at the test cases
14:27:28 <ivan> pgearon: i have a limited experience for this type of formalism, I would need help and I am not the person stipulating what is required
14:27:52 <ivan> LeeF: we will have to figure what we need and who is the right person to help with it
14:28:11 <ivan> LeeF: is there anything else of things that are missing
14:28:30 <ivan> pgearon: return cases for operations, most of them are success or failure, but, eg, you can have a partial load
14:28:34 <ivan> LeeF: when?
14:28:42 <ivan> pgearon: should be done by tomorrow night
14:28:50 <ivan> LeeF: did we pick reviewers last week?
14:28:56 <kasei> don't think so
14:28:58 <ivan> (stunned silence)
14:29:09 <ivan> (or everybody is ducking)
14:29:28 <ivan> LeeF: we will need at least one reviewer for all documents
14:29:39 <ivan> ... this is to catch issues 
14:29:50 <ivan> ... and they are in a reasonable stage for publication
14:30:00 <ivan> LeeF: anybody volunteers to review sparql update
14:30:12 <ivan> LeeF: I will volounteer
14:30:17 <LeeF> ACTION: LeeF to review SPARQL Update once pgearon gives the go ahead
14:30:17 <trackbot> Created ACTION-229 - Review SPARQL Update once pgearon gives the go ahead [on Lee Feigenbaum - due 2010-05-11].
14:30:48 <ivan> LeeF: anybody else reviewing update?
14:31:36 <ivan> AndyS: for the grammar for publication; there is one grammar that is shared for update and query
14:31:43 <AndyS>
14:31:48 <ivan> LeeF: have we not published the combined grammar yet?
14:31:55 <ivan> AndyS: the update stuff is not done yet
14:32:20 <ivan> LeeF: do we need to wrap it into a document structure with a proper URI in TR space?
14:32:34 <ivan> ... what is the intention for publishing it
14:32:50 <ivan> AndyS: the easy way is to put into, say, the query document and make it clear that it is also for update
14:33:00 <ivan> ... pgearon, would that work for you?
14:33:19 <ivan> pgearon: yes
14:33:40 <ivan> LeeF: are there outstanding question on the list to add this to the document?
14:33:52 <ivan> AndyS: there are couple issues open yet
14:33:59 <ivan> LeeF: in the update syntax thread
14:34:16 <ivan> ... let us resolve the syntax issues next week
14:34:29 <ivan> topic: federated queries
14:34:40 <LeeF> zakim, dial ericP-mobile
14:34:40 <Zakim> ok, LeeF; the call is being made
14:34:41 <Zakim> +EricP
14:35:33 <LeeF> zakim, drop ericp
14:35:33 <Zakim> EricP is being disconnected
14:35:35 <Zakim> -EricP
14:35:58 <LeeF>
14:36:23 <LeeF>
14:36:28 <ivan> LeeF: the issues was the binding stuff
14:36:39 <Zakim> -OlivierCorby
14:36:59 <ivan> ... short summary is that binding specifies a result set that should be used to constraint the answers to a federated query piece
14:37:24 <ivan> ... if you have two service nodes, it binds the ones coming from that clause and send that to another call 
14:37:34 <ivan> ... that is the general idea behind bindings
14:37:41 <Zakim> +OlivierCorby
14:37:58 <ivan> ... andy, most of the bindings  from arq, does it include bindings
14:38:08 <ivan> AndyS: no, that comes from eric's system
14:38:16 <LeeF>
14:38:38 <AndyS> q+
14:38:47 <ivan> LeeF: the other thing is section 3.1 where you can do the same thing for an insert/delete statement as a way to have a compact syntax for ground triples
14:39:05 <LeeF> ack AndyS
14:39:05 <AndyS> q-
14:39:06 <ivan> ... this was an area where we may not have concensus
14:39:11 <ivan> q+
14:39:28 <LeeF> ack ivan
14:39:31 <ivan> ivan: why is that different than having select in select?
14:39:58 <kasei> i think BINDINGS is important, but hesitant about its use with UPDATE
14:40:13 <ivan> LeeF: I am not sure I understand
14:40:21 <ivan> ivan: then I may not understand
14:40:42 <kasei> I think you could do this with subselects, but it would be nasty: { SELECT 1 AS ?id {} } UNION { SELECT 2 AS ?id {} }
14:40:56 <ivan> LeeF: it specifies a result set to join with a query
14:41:05 <AndyS> I'm hestitate about update - seems to mean update needs changing as well and overlaps with INSERT DATA etc.
14:41:20 <ivan> LeeF: there is an hesitation about using this with update
14:41:42 <pgearon> +q
14:41:46 <LeeF> ack pgearon
14:41:47 <ivan> ... AndyS also points out that interferes with insert/delete
14:42:00 <ivan> pgearon: i would mention a use case for binding
14:42:15 <AndyS> q+ to ask about BINDING position (after update discussion)
14:42:18 <kasei> also, BINDINGS with UPDATE probably doesn't belong in the fed document (SERVICE isn't defined specifically for UPDATE, right?)
14:42:51 <ivan> ... if you have a query for federation, you may execute part of the query on one host and use the result of that you can go to another place with some of the variables already bound, and that can dramatically reduce time
14:43:12 <ivan> ... so having binding has a real use case where can have dramatic effects
14:43:21 <ivan> ... in terms of insert/delete I do not see that too much
14:43:34 <AndyS> kasei - good point - sees to be about the input to the endpoint, not the federating query engine.
14:43:41 <kasei> in fact, unless BINDINGS is defined as normative in the query doc, it puts a burden on FED extensions to send off speculative queries first but require support for falling back to a non-BINDINGS-enhanced query.
14:43:43 <ivan> ... we can emulate bindings with subselects and unions and it is messy
14:44:13 <ivan> ... this particular syntax is useful, but only for select
14:44:29 <LeeF> ack AndyS
14:44:29 <Zakim> AndyS, you wanted to ask about BINDING position (after update discussion)
14:44:53 <ivan> AndyS: minor point, i have binding in the grammar but after all clauses
14:45:20 <ivan> ... we had a discussion on the mailing list but it is not yet in the document
14:45:36 <ivan> ... if everybody on the call has a consensus, then I can catch eric on that
14:45:48 <ivan> ... i will ask him to just make it so
14:46:16 <kasei> q+ to ask about moving BINDINGS to the query document
14:46:30 <LeeF> ack kasei
14:46:30 <Zakim> kasei, you wanted to ask about moving BINDINGS to the query document
14:46:57 <ivan> kasei: i believe that the federated is not required for implementations
14:47:12 <ivan> ... but the service keyword is provided locally with the endpoint you are talking to
14:47:23 <ivan> ... the use of binding should be on the other endpoint
14:47:31 <ivan> ... it should be more on the query side of things 
14:48:48 <pgearon> can we say that service descriptions are normative?
14:49:09 <ivan> LeeF: what if the bindings belong to the query document
14:49:15 <kasei> kasei: unless we require BINDINGS support for all query implementations, federated systems will likely have to send off speculative queries but may have to drop back to queries not using BINDINGS.
14:49:44 <ivan> ... are we ok requiring binding for all conformant sparql 1.1 implementations
14:49:45 <kasei> kasei: either way, this is probably something that should go in the service description.
14:50:17 <kasei> Zakim, mute me
14:50:17 <Zakim> kasei should now be muted
14:50:32 <ivan> LeeF: what do other people think?
14:50:42 <ivan> (stunned silence, they do not think anything)
14:51:30 <ivan> LeeF: I am inclined to... what am I inclined to do? I am inclined to peek eric's brain... 
14:51:36 <kasei> ... hesitantly think it should also be required.
14:51:52 <ivan> s/peek/peek into/
14:52:17 <LeeF> topic: ISSUE-54
14:52:33 <LeeF> mailing list thread:
14:52:35 <ivan> LeeF: putting property functions into service descriptions
14:52:48 <ericP> Zakim, please dial ericP-mobile
14:52:48 <Zakim> ok, ericP; the call is being made
14:52:50 <ivan> ... this includes a proposed text
14:52:50 <Zakim> +EricP
14:53:25 <Zakim> -EricP
14:53:38 <ivan> ... AndyS proposed text how to include that into the description
14:53:49 <ivan> ... steve and I indicated that we were happy with the proposed text
14:53:49 <kasei> for some reason I thought we had already resolved this issue...
14:54:01 <kasei> (already in the document)
14:54:07 <ivan> ... I would propose to accept this and add it to the document
14:54:25 <ivan> ... but it seems that greg is faster than anybody else (or travels in time) and has already done it
14:54:33 <LeeF>
14:54:49 <LeeF> """
14:54:51 <LeeF> 3.4.10 sd:propertyFeature
14:54:51 <LeeF> Releates an instance of sd:Service to a resource representing an implemented feature to the SPARQL Query or Update language that is accessed by using the named property.
14:54:51 <LeeF> sd:propertyFeature is an rdfs:subPropertyOf sd:feature. The rdfs:domain of sd:propertyFeature is sd:Service.
14:54:51 <kasei> sd:propertyFeature
14:54:52 <LeeF> """
14:55:15 <kasei> Zakim, mute me
14:55:15 <Zakim> kasei was already muted, kasei
14:55:28 <ivan> LeeF: I propose to close this issue
14:55:57 <LeeF> PROPOSED: Close ISSUE-54 based on the current text for sd:propertyFeature in, noting consensus in mailing list thread
14:56:10 <ivan> +1
14:56:19 <AndyS> +1
14:56:21 <LeeF> RESOLVED: Close ISSUE-54 based on the current text for sd:propertyFeature in, noting consensus in mailing list thread
14:56:31 <LeeF> trackbot, close ISSUE-54
14:56:31 <trackbot> ISSUE-54 Do we need (descriptions of) property functions in SD? Is this in scope for us? closed
14:56:38 <LeeF>  ISSUE-54: RESOLVED: Close ISSUE-54 based on the current text for sd:propertyFeature in, noting consensus in mailing list thread
14:56:38 <trackbot> ISSUE-54 Do we need (descriptions of) property functions in SD? Is this in scope for us? notes added
14:56:59 <ivan> topic: check in our document for readiness
14:57:21 <ivan> LeeF: we ask our editors to get the documents into reviewable stage and move to publication asap
14:57:55 <ivan> .... andy: summary on query?
14:58:37 <ivan> AndyS: i added some more stuff on negation, minus and not exist, and added examples for minus, steve added stuff on aggregates (some formatting problems)
14:59:35 <ivan> LeeF: it sounds that we can have somebody to review now
14:59:46 <MattPerry> i can review it
14:59:50 <ivan> AndyS: yes, it is messy, but it is only a working draft, so that should fine
15:00:03 <LeeF> ACTION: MattPerry to review SPARQL Query document for issues, concerns, praise, and publication-readiness
15:00:03 <trackbot> Sorry, couldn't find user - MattPerry
15:00:08 <LeeF> ACTION: Matt to review SPARQL Query document for issues, concerns, praise, and publication-readiness
15:00:08 <trackbot> Sorry, couldn't find user - Matt
15:00:13 <LeeF> ACTION: Matthew to review SPARQL Query document for issues, concerns, praise, and publication-readiness
15:00:15 <trackbot> Created ACTION-230 - Review SPARQL Query document for issues, concerns, praise, and publication-readiness [on Matthew Perry - due 2010-05-11].
15:00:31 <ivan> LeeF: property path document?
15:01:06 <ivan> AndyS: I have not done any work since last publication
15:01:20 <ivan> ... duplicates and negated property paths are to be added
15:01:32 <ivan> LeeF: we are not required to publish every document for a heartbeat, so that is fine
15:01:34 <kasei> Zakim, unmute me
15:01:34 <Zakim> kasei should no longer be muted
15:01:40 <ivan> LeeF: Greg, descriptions
15:02:02 <ivan> kasei: I wanted to have a link to the serialization format, ivan just did that, will do it
15:02:22 <ivan> ... the naming of named graphs in datasets is still missing
15:02:38 <ivan> ... I would like to hear sandro's response on andy's examples, but they look good
15:02:45 <ivan> ... the document is in a good shape
15:03:03 <ivan> ... we can sort out the naming issue for the next version, it is to go out today
15:03:08 <ivan> LeeF: any reviewer?
15:03:27 <kasei> *crickets*
15:03:32 <ivan> (deep, deep silence)
15:03:40 <kasei> Zakim, mute me
15:03:49 <ivan> LeeF: I will try to find somebody on the mailing list
15:03:51 <Zakim> kasei should now be muted
15:03:51 <LeeF> ACTION: LeeF to find 1 or more reviewers for the SD document
15:03:51 <trackbot> Created ACTION-231 - Find 1 or more reviewers for the SD document [on Lee Feigenbaum - due 2010-05-11].
15:04:41 <kasei> I'd be interested in reviewing fed and property paths whenever they're ready for that.
15:05:15 <ivan> LeeF: I have to put up a poll for the negation issue, will do soon
15:05:19 <ivan> adjurned
15:05:24 <Zakim> -chimezie
15:05:43 <Zakim> -MattPerry
15:05:44 <ivan> zakim, drop me
15:05:44 <Zakim> Ivan is being disconnected
15:05:44 <MattPerry> bye
15:05:44 <Zakim> -Lee_Feigenbaum
15:05:46 <Zakim> -Ivan
15:05:48 <Zakim> -pgearon
15:05:50 <Zakim> -kasei
15:05:57 <Zakim> -OlivierCorby
15:06:03 <Zakim> -AndyS
15:06:06 <Zakim> SW_(SPARQL)10:00AM has ended
15:06:07 <Zakim> Attendees were pgearon, kasei, Lee_Feigenbaum, MattPerry, Ivan, AndyS, Orri, OlivierCorby, chimezie, EricP
15:32:32 <bglimm> bglimm has joined #sparql
15:33:06 <bglimm> ups, I missed the call right?
15:33:18 <bglimm> I am in Canada, so got time zone confused...
15:34:02 <kasei> yup. over for 30 minutes now :\
15:34:11 <bglimm> :-(