Chatlog 2010-07-06

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.

13:56:33 <RRSAgent> RRSAgent has joined #sparql
13:56:33 <RRSAgent> logging to
13:56:35 <trackbot> RRSAgent, make logs world
13:56:35 <Zakim> Zakim has joined #sparql
13:56:37 <trackbot> Zakim, this will be 77277
13:56:37 <Zakim> ok, trackbot; I see SW_(SPARQL)10:00AM scheduled to start in 4 minutes
13:56:38 <trackbot> Meeting: SPARQL Working Group Teleconference
13:56:38 <trackbot> Date: 06 July 2010
13:56:38 <SteveH> I used to get a working line like one time in 3
13:56:51 <LeeF> zakim, this will be SPARQL
13:56:51 <Zakim> ok, LeeF; I see SW_(SPARQL)10:00AM scheduled to start in 4 minutes
13:56:52 <AndyS> "adding column" = join, the easy case :-)
13:56:55 <LeeF> Chair: LeeF
13:57:07 <LeeF> Would anyone please volunteer to scribe?
13:57:47 <MattPerry> MattPerry has joined #sparql
13:58:17 <LeeF> Regrets: AlexPassant, AxelPolleres, Souri
13:58:36 <pgearon> sorry, was off getting coffee. I can scribe
13:58:47 <Zakim> SW_(SPARQL)10:00AM has now started
13:58:47 <LeeF> pgearon, that would be great, but didn't you just scribe last week? :)
13:58:54 <Zakim> +[IPcaller]
13:58:57 <Zakim> +Lee_Feigenbaum
13:59:02 <pgearon> yes, and I'm not too good at it either.  :-)
13:59:06 <pgearon> so I could use the practice
13:59:10 <AndyS> zakim, +[IPcaller] is me
13:59:10 <Zakim> sorry, AndyS, I do not recognize a party named '+[IPcaller]'
13:59:19 <AndyS> zakim, +IPcaller is me
13:59:19 <Zakim> sorry, AndyS, I do not recognize a party named '+IPcaller'
13:59:20 <LeeF> i will take you up on it then, paul, thanks
13:59:23 <AndyS> zakim, IPcaller is me
13:59:23 <Zakim> +AndyS; got it
13:59:24 <LeeF> Scribe: Paul Gearon
13:59:26 <LeeF> Scribenick: pgearon
13:59:33 <Zakim> +[IPcaller]
13:59:41 <SteveH> Zakim, [IPcaller] is me
13:59:42 <AndyS> zakim,who is on the phone?
13:59:48 <Zakim> +SteveH; got it
13:59:50 <AndyS> zakim, who is on the phone?
13:59:52 <Zakim> On the phone I see AndyS, Lee_Feigenbaum, SteveH
13:59:54 <Zakim> +kasei
13:59:56 <Zakim> On the phone I see AndyS, Lee_Feigenbaum, SteveH, kasei
14:00:14 <Zakim> +pgearon
14:00:50 <Zakim> +MattPerry
14:00:56 <Zakim> + +
14:01:13 <OlivierCorby> zakim, 38.aaaa is me
14:01:22 <Zakim> sorry, OlivierCorby, I do not recognize a party named '38.aaaa'
14:01:41 <SteveH> I'm going to dial in again, skype is a bit ill
14:01:48 <kasei> procmail can sort that out, AndyS
14:01:49 <LeeF> zakim, aaaa is OlivierCorby
14:01:50 <Zakim> -SteveH
14:01:51 <kasei> :)
14:01:52 <Zakim> +OlivierCorby; got it
14:02:17 <bglimm> bglimm has joined #sparql
14:02:50 <Zakim> +[IPcaller]
14:02:54 <SteveH> Zakim, [IPcaller] is me
14:02:58 <Zakim> +SteveH; got it
14:03:18 <Zakim> +Sandro
14:03:41 <SteveH> seems not
14:03:44 <NicholasH> I can't get the UK number to work
14:03:53 <SteveH> me neither
14:03:53 <NicholasH> just phoning BBC Operator to connect me to US number
14:03:56 <Zakim> +bglimm
14:03:58 <Zakim> +??P45
14:04:09 <bglimm> Zakim, mute me
14:04:10 <Zakim> bglimm should now be muted
14:04:12 <Zakim> -??P45
14:04:16 <ivan> ivan has joined #sparql
14:04:29 <LeeF> topic: Admin
14:04:31 <Zakim> +??P1
14:04:38 <ivan> ivan has joined #sparql
14:04:40 <LeeF> PROPOSED: Approve minutes at
14:04:41 <NicholasH> zakim,  ??P1 is me
14:04:42 <Zakim> +NicholasH; got it
14:05:01 <LeeF> zakim, who's on the phone?
14:05:01 <Zakim> On the phone I see AndyS, Lee_Feigenbaum, kasei, pgearon, MattPerry, OlivierCorby, SteveH, Sandro, bglimm (muted), NicholasH
14:05:15 <chimezie> chimezie has joined #sparql
14:05:23 <chimezie> Zakim, what is the code?
14:05:23 <Zakim> the conference code is 77277 (tel:+1.617.761.6200 tel:+ tel:+44.117.370.6152), chimezie
14:05:40 <LeeF> RESOLVED: Approve minutes at
14:05:41 <pgearon> LeeF: any issues from last week?
14:05:59 <LeeF> Next meeting: 2010-07-13 @ 15:00 UK / 10:00 EDT
14:06:05 <Zakim> +Chimezie_Ogbuji
14:06:17 <LeeF> regrets next week: Sandro
14:06:24 <sandro> yep
14:06:27 <sandro> :-)
14:06:55 <pgearon> LeeF: any other admin business to take care of?
14:07:03 <LeeF> topic: LET/Assignment
14:07:09 <ivan> ivan has joined #sparql
14:07:16 <LeeF>
14:07:23 <chimezie> Zakim, mute me
14:07:23 <Zakim> Chimezie_Ogbuji should now be muted
14:07:49 <ivan> ivan has joined #sparql
14:08:14 <pgearon> LeeF: LET syntactically easy way to bind values, esp for use in a FILTER
14:08:23 <ivan> ivan has joined #sparql
14:08:44 <pgearon> LeeF: one of the most popular features to miss the cut when we decided on features for SPARQL 1.1
14:08:44 <ivan> ivan has joined #sparql
14:09:34 <pgearon> LeeF: strong response from a few organizations, such as TopQuadrant. Also from working group members like pgearon and AndyS that it ought to be done, and can be easily implemented
14:10:09 <pgearon> LeeF: alternative of subquery with projected expression will work, but is complex
14:10:37 <pgearon> LeeF: last F2F, some people thought it would be a bad idea, some thought it should be included
14:10:38 <ivan> ivan has joined #sparql
14:10:59 <ivan> zakim, dial ivan-voip
14:10:59 <Zakim> ok, ivan; the call is being made
14:11:01 <Zakim> +Ivan
14:11:08 <pgearon> LeeF: AndyS as an editor said that semantically this is easy, because it fit into algebra easily
14:11:43 <pgearon> LeeF: several implementations now support LET
14:12:04 <AndyS> Yes - no new algebra - it can be defn'ed just by exposing (extend) used in SELECT expressions directly.
14:12:35 <chimezie> Zakim, unmute me
14:12:35 <Zakim> Chimezie_Ogbuji should no longer be muted
14:12:37 <pgearon> LeeF: anyone want to speak about it?
14:12:41 <SteveH> I think I've spoken about it enough - it looks too much like assignment
14:13:56 <pgearon> Chimezie_Ogbuji: is this just a column extension? AndyS: yes, that's one implementation
14:14:19 <pgearon> SteveH: LET looks like a procedural feature.
14:14:34 <pgearon> SteveH: functionality, it's just like a subselect
14:14:56 <pgearon> SteveH: if it's a popular feature, then why not? IT makes me feel a little queasy :-)
14:15:08 <pgearon> +q
14:15:17 <SteveH> if it wasn't called LET I'd be much less unhappy, FWIW
14:15:23 <pgearon> q-
14:15:23 <chimezie> I sympathize for the fact that it makes the language seem very procedural 
14:15:48 <LeeF> pgearon: i think not having LET is a similar mistake to SPARQL 1.0 not having a negation operation
14:15:57 <LeeF> ... possible to do things, but complicated and confusing for users
14:16:14 <SteveH> there are good historical reasons why S1.0 had no MINUS
14:16:29 <sandro> +1 paul it's an important feature that'll be useful to a lot of people
14:17:10 <pgearon> LeeF: do we want to include this at all, before figuring out the details
14:17:55 <chimezie> s/sympathize for/sympathize with
14:17:55 <chimezie> pgearon: we would be making the same mistake as we did in not including MINUS originally in SPARQL 1.0
14:18:02 <pgearon> LeeF: any more comments before straw polling?
14:18:08 <pgearon> no response
14:19:34 <pgearon> LeeF: strawpoll - choice 1: do not include LET/assignment. choice 2: include LET as a keyword, choice 3: include with other keyword (such as BIND)
14:19:40 <LeeF> straw poll: (1) do not include LET/assignment ("do nothing"), (2) include with LET as keyword ("LET"), (3) include with other keyword ("other")
14:19:52 <SteveH> one advantage of a new keyword is that it wont break anyone's implementation
14:20:24 <ivan> 2
14:20:25 <kasei> I imagine 2.5 isn't a valid option? I don't have a preference on the keyword...
14:20:27 <chimezie> 3
14:20:29 <pgearon> 2
14:20:33 <MattPerry> 3
14:20:35 <OlivierCorby> 1
14:20:39 <SteveH> 1 or 3
14:20:41 <sandro> 3
14:20:45 <bglimm> 2 or 3
14:20:50 <AndyS> 2
14:20:54 <NicholasH> 3
14:20:58 <LeeF> 0
14:21:12 <sandro> wow, what an awkward split
14:21:13 <AndyS> Or no keyword :   ?x := ?y+1  
14:21:41 <pgearon> LeeF: strong feeling that we ought to do *something* (so not 1)
14:22:14 <pgearon> OlivierCorby: SPARQL is a graph matching language. Would prefer a simpler language with simpler principles
14:22:38 <pgearon> LeeF: this is similar to SteveH's concerns
14:22:40 <pgearon> +q
14:22:44 <LeeF> ack pgearon
14:23:20 <NicholasH> LET is very retro :)
14:23:25 <LeeF> q+
14:23:27 <SteveH> and misleading
14:23:33 <LeeF> ack me
14:24:40 <pgearon> both AndyS and myself seem happy to break LET. In my case this is because LET is not any kind of a standard
14:25:42 <pgearon> chimezie: if we choose a different keyword, then wouldn't it have identical semantics to current implementations of LET?
14:26:03 <SteveH> pgearon, it doesn't seem like any 2 people have implemented it the same way
14:26:15 <SteveH> [sorry, misread]
14:26:16 <AndyS> The most common use of LET is to introduce a new var name. That's the case that matters to me (and, I believe, my users) 
14:27:47 <pgearon> LeeF: for each of 3 options, asking if anyone feels strongly enough to register a formal objection if the group goes that way
14:28:45 <pgearon> AndyS: as a principle, I'm uncomfortable with this approach
14:28:56 <LeeF> poll: likely to object if the group decides not to include LET/assignment? 
14:29:40 <LeeF> pgearon: potentially, not sure
14:29:43 <ivan> q+
14:29:46 <chimezie> -1 (not likely to)
14:29:48 <LeeF> ack ivan
14:29:57 <pgearon> LeeF: you don't have to vote here. Just trying to figure out who is likely to object. Want to avoid objections in the future
14:30:15 <pgearon> Ivan: would TopQuadrant object if LET is not there?
14:30:33 <pgearon> LeeF: yes, TQ indicated that they would register a formal objection
14:30:52 <pgearon> Ivan: hope they do not require the keyword LET
14:30:58 <SteveH> the last time I spoke to jeremy abut this, he really wanted actual assignment, FWIW
14:31:03 <SteveH> that was some time ago though
14:31:11 <SteveH> not as in SPARQL LET
14:31:15 <pgearon> LeeF: don't know enough about TQ's formal position
14:31:32 <LeeF> poll: likely to object if the group decides to include the LET keyword (option 2 from above)?
14:31:37 <pgearon> LeeF: who's likely to object if the keyword LET is included?
14:31:51 <LeeF> (no comments)
14:31:52 <SteveH> I might, if I have time on my hands
14:31:56 <SteveH> so, not likely
14:32:15 <LeeF> poll: likely to object if the group decides to include the feature with a keyword other than LET (option 3 from above)?
14:32:33 <pgearon> resounding silence
14:33:02 <OlivierCorby> lambda x ...
14:33:19 <pgearon> LeeF: to repeat, this does NOT preclude anyone from objecting or not objecting in the future. (this was just an indication)
14:33:19 <SteveH> AndyS, not so, he cornered me for several hours at the east coast F2F
14:33:34 <SteveH> EXTEND?
14:33:39 <SteveH> ADD
14:33:47 <SteveH> EXTRA...
14:33:55 <SteveH> VALUE()
14:33:58 <SteveH> whatever really
14:34:00 <pgearon> I liked AndyS's no keyword idea (?x := expr)
14:34:06 <SteveH> erk!
14:34:07 <kasei> ☃
14:34:26 <pgearon> LeeF: I'm glad the snowman came into it :-)
14:34:47 <pgearon> LeeF: support for each keyword?
14:34:54 <LeeF> LET
14:34:57 <SteveH> -1
14:35:01 <chimezie> -1
14:35:03 <pgearon> +1
14:35:07 <AndyS> +1
14:35:14 <NicholasH> -1
14:35:14 <OlivierCorby> -1
14:35:18 <MattPerry> -1
14:35:30 <LeeF> BIND
14:35:40 <SteveH> +0.5
14:35:47 <OlivierCorby> -1
14:35:49 <NicholasH> heh, yeah +0.5
14:35:49 <MattPerry> +1
14:35:54 <kasei> +1
14:35:55 <bglimm> +1
14:36:15 <LeeF> SET
14:36:17 <pgearon> +1
14:36:20 <OlivierCorby> -1
14:36:21 <SteveH> -1
14:36:23 <chimezie> -1
14:36:25 <MattPerry> -1
14:36:31 <NicholasH> -1
14:36:42 <LeeF> EXTEND
14:36:45 <SteveH> +1
14:36:45 <chimezie> +1
14:36:45 <pgearon> -1
14:36:46 <AndyS> -1
14:36:47 <OlivierCorby> -1
14:36:48 <ivan> -1
14:36:55 <NicholasH> 0
14:37:06 <LeeF> ADD
14:37:10 <AndyS> -1
14:37:11 <SteveH> -1
14:37:11 <pgearon> -1
14:37:12 <OlivierCorby> -1
14:37:13 <ivan> -1
14:37:13 <MattPerry> -1
14:37:13 <chimezie> -1
14:37:20 <NicholasH> -1
14:37:30 <LeeF> EXTRA
14:37:32 <pgearon> -1
14:37:33 <chimezie> -1
14:37:34 <AndyS> -1
14:37:36 <OlivierCorby> -1
14:37:36 <MattPerry> -1
14:37:37 <ivan> -1
14:37:40 <LeeF> VALUE
14:37:43 <chimezie> -1
14:37:45 <MattPerry> -1
14:37:45 <SteveH> +0.5
14:37:46 <OlivierCorby> -1
14:37:47 <AndyS> -1
14:37:49 <pgearon> -1
14:37:54 <NicholasH> What about MAP?
14:38:01 <LeeF> MAP
14:38:04 <pgearon> -1
14:38:06 <SteveH> +1
14:38:09 <AndyS> -1
14:38:10 <OlivierCorby> -1
14:38:12 <MattPerry> -1
14:38:13 <chimezie> +1
14:38:13 <NicholasH> +1
14:38:31 <SteveH> -1
14:38:33 <chimezie> -1
14:38:35 <NicholasH> -1
14:38:36 <pgearon> +1
14:38:36 <OlivierCorby> -1
14:38:36 <MattPerry> -1
14:38:38 <AndyS> +0.5
14:38:57 <sandro> [ please put me down as a +1 for BIND ]
14:39:37 <pgearon> SteveH: noted that we haven't discussed the semantics at all
14:40:16 <SteveH> aliases v's adding another "column" might sway people one way or the other
14:40:29 <SteveH> but it's probably not important
14:40:53 <pgearon> LeeF: hoping to get through whether or not to include the feature before taking on the issues of semantics. Hoping that there aren't any semantics issues that we need to be considering just yet
14:40:54 <SteveH> can we hear from people who didn't like BIND? maybe there's something we've not thought of
14:41:05 <SteveH> it's only been on the table for 20 mins
14:42:03 <SteveH> +1 to concerns over scoping rules
14:42:11 <pgearon> Olivier: doesn't like the feature at all. But if it were included would like LET
14:42:28 <pgearon> s/Olivier/OlivierCorby/
14:42:47 <pgearon> OlivierCorby: bind is already complex. This would make it moreso
14:42:59 <LeeF> PROPOSED: SPARQL 1.1 Query includes the feature using a keyword of BIND
14:43:00 <pgearon> s/bind/binding/
14:43:42 <SteveH> the wording of Feature:Assignment is exactly the kind of thing that's logically nasty
14:43:50 <SteveH> it doesn't really speak to extending the binding table
14:43:56 <chimezie> The more I think about it, it seems that not settling on the semantics before we conclude on a keyword might be dangerous
14:44:04 <OlivierCorby> I mean scoping rules for variables are already complex with different rules for pattern, exists, minus and now let 
14:44:18 <pgearon> LeeF: would like to put out a question on this on the mailing list, get comments, and address it next week. Unfortunately, this often results in silence on the mailing list
14:45:42 <AndyS> q+
14:45:45 <pgearon> LeeF: previously suggested test cases were more about contrasting subselect vs. LET
14:45:45 <LeeF> ack AndyS
14:46:08 <pgearon> AndyS: why don't we get each of the implementors to write up what they've done
14:47:11 <pgearon> LeeF: anyone want to take the lead in trying to create test cases?
14:47:12 <AndyS> I have test cases.  I can sort through them to pull out the core ones
14:47:57 <SteveH> I'd be more interested in seeing descriptions of the algebraic operations than testcases
14:47:57 <pgearon> LeeF: get AndyS, pgearon, and LeeF to write up what we do in our implementations
14:48:49 <pgearon> LeeF: leaving the LET/assignment topic for today
14:48:50 <AndyS>
14:48:51 <LeeF> ACTION: Lee to write-up Glitter treatment of LET
14:48:51 <trackbot> Created ACTION-277 - Write-up Glitter treatment of LET [on Lee Feigenbaum - due 2010-07-13].
14:49:00 <LeeF> ACTION: Andy to write-up ARQ treatment of LET
14:49:00 <trackbot> Created ACTION-278 - Write-up ARQ treatment of LET [on Andy Seaborne - due 2010-07-13].
14:49:06 <LeeF> ACTION: Paul to write-up Mulgara treatment of LET
14:49:06 <trackbot> Created ACTION-279 - Write-up Mulgara treatment of LET [on Paul Gearon - due 2010-07-13].
14:49:50 <pgearon> LeeF: not going to discuss test cases now, as we only have 10 minutes left
14:50:06 <pgearon> LeeF: continue test case discussion on the mailing list
14:50:39 <pgearon> LeeF: want to discuss and hopefully approve test cases next week. Please get familiar with them before the next meeting
14:51:16 <pgearon> AndyS: what are we approving exactly? The last time around this would handled differently with CVS
14:51:57 <pgearon> LeeF: hoping to approving them modulo getting the syntax right, but if that's not good enough then happy to do it more formally
14:52:15 <pgearon> +q
14:52:19 <LeeF> ack pgearon
14:53:59 <pgearon> pgearon: concerned that not having all tests syntactically correct, and checked into CVS in their final form, might be OK in the early stages, but could lead to a procedural mess towards the end
14:54:35 <pgearon> LeeF: OK, let's look at getting them checked into CVS in their final form before approving
14:54:43 <pgearon> LeeF: other business?
14:54:58 <SteveH> bye all
14:54:59 <Zakim> -Chimezie_Ogbuji
14:55:00 <ivan> zakim, drop me
14:55:00 <Zakim> -Lee_Feigenbaum
14:55:00 <Zakim> Ivan is being disconnected
14:55:01 <MattPerry> bye
14:55:01 <Zakim> -bglimm
14:55:01 <Zakim> -Ivan
14:55:04 <Zakim> -OlivierCorby
14:55:05 <NicholasH> bye bye!
14:55:05 <Zakim> -SteveH
14:55:06 <Zakim> -MattPerry
14:55:08 <Zakim> -NicholasH
14:55:11 <LeeF> paul, thanks very much for scribing again
14:55:13 <Zakim> -Sandro
14:55:15 <pgearon> np
14:55:19 <LeeF> RRSAgent, make logs world
14:55:39 <Zakim> -AndyS
14:55:49 <Zakim> -kasei
14:55:51 <Zakim> -pgearon
14:55:51 <Zakim> SW_(SPARQL)10:00AM has ended
14:55:51 <NicholasH> I don't mind doing some scribing
14:55:52 <Zakim> Attendees were Lee_Feigenbaum, AndyS, SteveH, kasei, pgearon, MattPerry, +, OlivierCorby, Sandro, bglimm, NicholasH, Chimezie_Ogbuji, Ivan
14:56:11 <NicholasH> but I don't recognise everyone's voices at the moment