Chatlog 2010-10-12

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.

13:36:43 <RRSAgent> RRSAgent has joined #sparql
13:36:43 <RRSAgent> logging to
13:48:34 <NickH> NickH has joined #sparql
13:51:04 <SteveH__> SteveH__ has joined #sparql
13:51:53 <SteveH__> SteveH__ has joined #sparql
13:53:00 <LeeF> Looking at the end of last week's minutes, I'm not sure of an example that differentiates between "in place" and "end of gorup" semantics for binds, given the resolution that to use simple (error to assign to in-scope variable) semantics
13:53:10 <LeeF> AndyS, I don't know if you've thought about this at all
13:53:26 <LeeF> looking at this bit from the end of last week's call
13:53:27 <LeeF> """
13:53:29 <LeeF> Lee Feigenbaum: WHERE { ?x ns:q ?v . KW(?two := 2*?v) . ?x ns:q: ?two } ←
13:53:29 <LeeF>  <LeeF> in place semantics: the above is allowed
13:53:29 <LeeF> Lee Feigenbaum: in place semantics: the above is allowed ←
13:53:29 <LeeF>  <LeeF> end of group semantics: the above is an error
13:53:29 <LeeF> Lee Feigenbaum: end of group semantics: the above is an error ←
13:53:30 <LeeF>  <SteveH__> it might be an error either way
13:53:33 <LeeF> Steve Harris: it might be an error either way ←
13:53:34 <LeeF>  <SteveH__> ?two is still in scope
13:53:37 <LeeF> Steve Harris: ?two is still in scope ←
13:53:39 <LeeF> whoa, that pasted awfully
13:53:41 <LeeF> i'm sorry
13:53:44 <LeeF>
13:54:05 <SteveH> no zakim?
13:54:11 <AxelPolleres> I tried to summarise the status/options quickly...
13:54:16 <Zakim> Zakim has joined #sparql
13:54:30 <AxelPolleres> trackbot,, this will be sparql
13:54:36 <AxelPolleres> trackbot, this will be sparql
13:54:36 <trackbot> Sorry, AxelPolleres, I don't understand 'trackbot, this will be sparql'. Please refer to for help
13:54:47 <AxelPolleres> trackbot, start meeting
13:54:47 <AxelPolleres> regrets: Souri
13:54:47 <AxelPolleres> chair: Axel Polleres
13:54:50 <trackbot> RRSAgent, make logs world
13:54:52 <trackbot> Zakim, this will be 77277
13:54:52 <Zakim> ok, trackbot; I see SW_(SPARQL)10:00AM scheduled to start in 6 minutes
13:54:53 <trackbot> Meeting: SPARQL Working Group Teleconference
13:54:53 <trackbot> Date: 12 October 2010
13:55:01 <SteveH> Scribe: SteveH 
13:55:07 <NickH> who is here?
13:55:22 <NickH> zakim, who is here?
13:55:22 <Zakim> SW_(SPARQL)10:00AM has not yet started, NickH
13:55:23 <Zakim> On IRC I see SteveH, NickH, RRSAgent, OlivierCorby, LeeF, AxelPolleres, cbuilara_, AndyS, ivan, iv_an_ru, AlexPassant, pgearon, trackbot, ericP, kasei, sandro
13:56:10 <LeeF> AxelPolleres, I don't think your summary is accurate
13:56:31 <LeeF> in particular, the equivalence you give would have been the join/filter semantics, not the simple semantics
13:56:35 <AndyS> zakim, start meeting
13:56:35 <Zakim> I don't understand 'start meeting', AndyS
13:56:54 <LeeF> trackbot, start meeting
13:56:56 <trackbot> RRSAgent, make logs world
13:56:58 <trackbot> Zakim, this will be 77277
13:56:58 <Zakim> ok, trackbot; I see SW_(SPARQL)10:00AM scheduled to start in 4 minutes
13:56:58 <AxelPolleres> LeeF, ok let me know where I am wrong...
13:56:59 <trackbot> Meeting: SPARQL Working Group Teleconference
13:56:59 <trackbot> Date: 12 October 2010
13:57:16 <LeeF> Well, the subquery equivalence doesn't make it an error to project a variable that's then bound in the same scope as the subquery
13:57:29 <LeeF> and that's what the group decided (simple semantics) to do for bind/assignment
13:57:30 <SteveH> Zakim, who's on the phone?
13:57:30 <Zakim> SW_(SPARQL)10:00AM has not yet started, SteveH
13:57:31 <Zakim> On IRC I see SteveH, NickH, RRSAgent, OlivierCorby, LeeF, AxelPolleres, cbuilara_, AndyS, ivan, iv_an_ru, AlexPassant, pgearon, trackbot, ericP, kasei, sandro
13:57:36 <LeeF> zakim, this will be sparql
13:57:36 <Zakim> ok, LeeF, I see SW_(SPARQL)10:00AM already started
13:57:42 <Zakim> -??P12
13:57:42 <LeeF> zakim, who's on the phone?
13:57:43 <Zakim> On the phone I see ??P9, Garlik, AxelPolleres
13:58:06 <Zakim> +??P12
13:58:12 <AndyS> zakim, ??P12 is me
13:58:12 <Zakim> +AndyS; got it
13:58:21 <AxelPolleres> LeeF, I thought that order-dependence means that only the use of var within P1 (ie on the rhs of assignment) would be restricted? 
13:58:25 <Zakim> +OlivierCorby
13:58:27 <SteveH> Zakim, Garlik is temporarily me
13:58:27 <Zakim> +SteveH; got it
13:58:54 <NickH> zakim, ??P9 is me
13:58:54 <Zakim> +NickH; got it
13:59:07 <ivan> zakim, dial ivan-voip
13:59:07 <Zakim> ok, ivan; the call is being made
13:59:09 <Zakim> +Ivan
13:59:29 <Zakim> +kasei
13:59:56 <LeeF> AxelPolleres, I see what you're saying
14:00:04 <MattPerry> MattPerry has joined #sparql
14:00:13 <bglimm> bglimm has joined #sparql
14:00:42 <LeeF> I can live with that, though I probably won't change my implementation to do it that way, since I think it's weird :) 
14:00:44 <Zakim> +MattPerry
14:00:50 <bglimm> all circuits are busy now...
14:01:06 <AxelPolleres>
14:01:36 <LeeF> no wait, i do'nt think that equivalence works
14:01:39 <Zakim> + +1.617.553.aaaa
14:01:44 <AxelPolleres> PROPOSED: Approve minutes at
14:02:05 <Zakim> +bglimm
14:02:07 <AxelPolleres> RESOLVED: Approve minutes at
14:02:10 <NickH> I wasn't there last week
14:02:16 <NickH> but I am in the Seen list
14:02:27 <bglimm> Zakim, mute me
14:02:27 <Zakim> bglimm should now be muted
14:02:31 <AxelPolleres> Zakim, who is on the phone?
14:02:31 <Zakim> On the phone I see NickH, SteveH, AxelPolleres, AndyS, OlivierCorby, Ivan, kasei, MattPerry, +1.617.553.aaaa, bglimm (muted)
14:02:32 <ivan> regrets for next week
14:02:42 <ivan> zakim, mute me
14:02:43 <Zakim> Ivan should now be muted
14:02:47 <SteveH> regrets for me too
14:02:53 <LeeF> NickH, thanks, I'll fix that
14:03:02 <bglimm> There was some other Nick last week
14:03:15 <SteveH> AxelPolleres: comments. we have some comments to deal with
14:03:16 <AxelPolleres> topic: comments
14:03:19 <AxelPolleres>
14:03:19 <cbuilara_> I can't connect to the phone, I'm using skype and I do not have a phone that allows me to make international calls :(
14:03:33 <SteveH> ... some things we have not decided, andsome things marked open
14:03:34 <cbuilara_> I will comment hre
14:03:43 <SteveH> ... some comments by g. Klyne
14:04:31 <SteveH> ... on optional and aggregates
14:05:46 <AxelPolleres> ACTION: steveH to draft a reply to GK-1 and Gk-2 
14:05:46 <trackbot> Created ACTION-322 - Draft a reply to GK-1 and Gk-2  [on Steve Harris - due 2010-10-19].
14:06:21 <Zakim> +??P27
14:06:31 <AxelPolleres>
14:06:33 <SteveH> I'm not sure I liked the draft to the wiki page, but it should be searchable
14:07:00 <SteveH> ^^ is hte one
14:07:35 <SteveH> long discussion started by richard ?
14:07:42 <Zakim> +pgearon
14:07:52 <SteveH> can anyone summarise?
14:08:01 <SteveH> AxelPolleres: can anyone summarise
14:08:14 <SteveH> ... someone should look and and see where we have to respond
14:08:58 <SteveH> LeeF: we need to spend time on protocol, but havent
14:09:14 <SteveH> AxelPolleres: maybe we should just have some reaction
14:09:32 <SteveH> LeeF: there was some confusion about what was formal
14:09:37 <SteveH> q+
14:09:58 <SteveH> AxelPolleres: lets keep it open
14:10:03 <SteveH> q-
14:10:06 <AxelPolleres> keep comments RC-1,RC-2 open until prot has settled
14:10:32 <SteveH> AxelPolleres: re. comment from GK on OPTIONAL
14:10:52 <SteveH> ... on OPTIONAL with nested FILTER
14:10:55 <AndyS> q+
14:11:22 <AxelPolleres> ack AndyS
14:11:34 <SteveH> AndyS: it's a different query with {}s opposed to without
14:11:53 <SteveH> AxelPolleres: GK wants some explanation
14:11:59 <SteveH> ... I think it's enough to reply on list
14:12:16 <SteveH> AndyS: there are so many possible cases, I don't see anythig fundamnetal on this one
14:12:27 <SteveH> AxelPolleres: I will draft reply
14:12:43 <AxelPolleres> ACTION: Axel to draft reply on GK-3
14:12:43 <trackbot> Created ACTION-323 - Draft reply on GK-3 [on Axel Polleres - due 2010-10-19].
14:13:06 <SteveH> AxelPolleres: agreed 5 drafts to be published this week
14:13:07 <AxelPolleres> topic: publication status
14:13:20 <SteveH> ... offical date is 2010-10-14
14:13:35 <SteveH> ... problems with broken links, will figure out with staff + editors
14:13:57 <AxelPolleres> topic: LET/BIND/assignment
14:14:07 <LeeF> thanks very much to Birte for writing up the steps to prepare docs for publication!!
14:14:11 <SteveH> AxelPolleres: not much discussion since last week on list
14:14:15 <SteveH> ... tried to summarise
14:14:19 <AxelPolleres>
14:14:46 <SteveH> ... preference for simple semantics
14:15:03 <SteveH> ... this means that assignment would just be syntactic sugar for subselect
14:15:22 <SteveH> ... should it be order dependent?
14:15:34 <LeeF> No
14:15:35 <SteveH> ... Andy said that this is order dependent
14:15:37 <ivan> is subselect order dependent?
14:15:40 <LeeF> that's not true
14:15:43 <LeeF> ARQ uses join/filter semantics
14:15:44 <SteveH> ... I think this would be inline with my understanding
14:15:49 <LeeF> so it's NOT order dependent iN ARQ
14:16:05 <SteveH> AndyS: it's not order dependent in ARQ
14:16:17 <AxelPolleres>    { P1 KW(Expr AS ?Var)  P2}
14:16:19 <AxelPolleres>     =:=
14:16:19 <AxelPolleres>       { { SELECT * (Expr AS ?Var) { P1} } P2 }
14:16:20 <SteveH> AxelPolleres: q is whether these two things are equiv
14:16:33 <SteveH> q+
14:16:45 <SteveH> q-
14:17:32 <LeeF> Error if P1 contains ?Var
14:17:33 <ivan> q+
14:17:34 <kasei> q+
14:17:51 <LeeF> alternative meaning is { { SELECT * (Expr AS ?var) { P1 . P2 } } }
14:18:02 <SteveH> AxelPolleres: if it's syntactic sugar for this, then it is order dep
14:18:04 <SteveH> q+_
14:18:07 <SteveH> q+
14:18:11 <SteveH> q-_
14:18:14 <LeeF> q- _
14:18:21 <kasei> q-
14:18:31 <LeeF> ack ivan
14:18:32 <ivan> ack ivan
14:18:45 <SteveH> ivan�: is subselect order dependent
14:18:54 <SteveH> ... then bind is not order dependent
14:19:21 <SteveH> AxelPolleres: assignment is order dependent because which part is on the left depends on whats inside and whats outside
14:19:25 <LeeF> Axel's version ("in place" semantics) -- the bind operator "breaks up" a group
14:19:29 <SteveH> ... determines syntactic restrictions
14:19:42 <LeeF> "end of group" semantics just shoves all assignments to the "bottom"/"end" of the group
14:19:52 <AndyS> Lee's test case:  WHERE { ?x ns:q ?v . KW(?two := 2*?v) . ?x ns:q: ?two }
14:19:54 <SteveH> ... discussed syntactit restriction for project expr, pending agreement
14:20:03 <SteveH> ... t oapttern 1 not 2
14:20:22 <SteveH> ... according to my semantics this would be ok
14:20:32 <SteveH> ... because ?two is only bound on RHS
14:20:36 <SteveH> ... so it would be ok
14:20:49 <SteveH> ... with alt rewriting then it would not be ok
14:21:21 <LeeF> ack SteveH
14:22:03 <AndyS> Example please
14:22:15 <LeeF> +1 AndyS, examples!
14:22:38 <LeeF> end of pattern in lexical order seems reasonable
14:22:49 <LeeF> zakim, who's speaking?
14:22:59 <Zakim> LeeF, listening for 10 seconds I heard sound from the following: AndyS (9%)
14:23:07 <AxelPolleres>  { ?x ns:q ?v . KW(?two := 2*?v) . ?x ns:q: ?two KW(?two := 3*?v)
14:23:38 <LeeF>  alternative meaning is { { SELECT * (Expr AS ?var) { P1 . P2 } } }
14:24:45 <SteveH> AxelPolleres: one is order dep. one is not
14:25:02 <SteveH> AxelPolleres: downside of not order dep is that you can't use ?var in P2
14:25:24 <SteveH> ... personal pref for order dependence
14:25:38 <ivan> q+
14:25:48 <LeeF> ack ivan
14:26:12 <SteveH> ivan: if we introduce order dep is this a new thing in the ql
14:26:22 <SteveH> ... optional is a very different animal
14:26:37 <SteveH> AndyS: lots of things are order dependent
14:26:42 <SteveH> ... it's shuffling around the {}s
14:27:13 <SteveH> ivan: yes, but that means order dependence without {}s, in basic model grap patterns are not order dep
14:27:34 <SteveH> ... on the mental model side we introduce something with order dep, I don't like that
14:27:40 <SteveH> +1 to ivan
14:27:44 <SteveH> seems odd to me
14:28:01 <SteveH> AndyS: people want to write it to reuse later in expression
14:28:10 <LeeF> right, people like to write their queries in the order they expect it to execute
14:28:13 <SteveH> ... lees testcase is getting at that
14:28:27 <SteveH> ... argue for people intuition than anything else
14:28:41 <SteveH> ... I don't think many people think of FILTERS as floating, but it happens to work out
14:28:45 <AxelPolleres> q?
14:28:47 <SteveH> ... people read queries l->r
14:28:57 <AxelPolleres> straw poll
14:28:59 <AxelPolleres>   1) order dependent  { P1 KW(Expr AS ?Var)  P2} =:=  { { SELECT *
14:28:59 <AxelPolleres>   (Expr AS ?Var) { P1} } P2 }
14:28:59 <AxelPolleres>   2) oder-indepentent { P1 KW(Expr AS ?Var)  P2} =:=  { { SELECT *
14:28:59 <AxelPolleres>   (Expr AS ?Var) { P1 . P2 } }
14:29:36 <pgearon> 1
14:29:40 <AndyS> 1 - mildly (but this is rushed)
14:29:41 <kasei> 0
14:29:42 <SteveH> 0
14:29:43 <bglimm> 0
14:29:43 <ivan> 0
14:29:44 <OlivierCorby> -1
14:29:56 <NickH> 0
14:29:57 <MattPerry> 1
14:29:58 <SteveH> -1 also
14:30:13 <cbuilara_> 0
14:30:26 <SteveH> AxelPolleres: seems we had strong preference that we wanted it
14:30:36 <SteveH> -1 = dont want [from me]
14:30:46 <SteveH> feels too rushed, dont understand consequences
14:30:48 <AxelPolleres> 1 (no-chair, of course)
14:31:21 <pgearon> +q
14:31:35 <SteveH> q+
14:32:55 <pgearon> q-
14:32:59 <SteveH> pgearon: question about subsel mapping
14:33:04 <ivan> if I have to choose, I choose #2
14:34:41 <SteveH> AxelPolleres: in pricimple we could go ahead but we have some "objections"
14:34:46 <SteveH> ... my preference to to go with 1
14:35:07 <SteveH> ... I would propose to implement one, see what comments we get then go ahead
14:35:14 <LeeF> We still need to discuss syntax.
14:35:18 <SteveH> ... can we close with that conclusion?
14:35:21 <LeeF> And then probably a reoslution to close ISSUE-57
14:35:23 <SteveH> [not keen]
14:35:29 <AxelPolleres>  conclusion: go ahead with option 1) noting that we have some reservations.
14:35:35 <ivan> zakim, mute me
14:35:35 <Zakim> Ivan should now be muted
14:36:06 <AxelPolleres>
14:36:10 <SteveH> SteveH has joined #sparql
14:36:45 <SteveH> AxelPolleres, syntax, BIND/LET and :=/AS
14:37:09 <SteveH> ... start with BIND v's LET
14:37:16 <SteveH> +BIND - LET
14:37:24 <AxelPolleres> strawpoll +1 BIND -1 LET
14:37:30 <kasei> +1
14:37:33 <ivan> -1
14:37:33 <SteveH> +1
14:37:33 <AndyS> BIND (mildly)
14:37:37 <MattPerry> -1
14:37:44 <LeeF> BIND (mildly)
14:37:49 <bglimm> -1 (but not strong)
14:37:57 <AxelPolleres> +1
14:38:15 <AndyS> SET is good as well.
14:38:29 <SteveH> AndyS, SET does something else in SQL
14:38:30 <pgearon> +1
14:38:41 <pgearon> ooops, -1
14:38:44 <bglimm> no
14:38:46 <AndyS> q+
14:38:47 <SteveH> AxelPolleres: of those who voted for LET, would any object to BIND
14:39:01 <pgearon> I prefer "LET"
14:39:01 <AxelPolleres> ack SteveH
14:39:07 <LeeF> ack AndyS
14:39:21 <SteveH> AndyS: preference is related to pt. 2, BIND goes with AS, LET better with :=
14:39:27 <LeeF> i think we ought to just decide between:
14:39:28 <LeeF> LET :=
14:39:31 <LeeF> BIND :=
14:39:33 <LeeF> BIND .. .AS
14:39:36 <MattPerry> I agree with Andy
14:39:39 <LeeF> those are the only 3 serious ones i've seen suggestd
14:39:39 <SteveH> me too
14:40:02 <SteveH> AxelPolleres: LET := / BIND := / BIND AS
14:40:12 <AxelPolleres> put 1, 2 3 ...
14:40:15 <SteveH> 3
14:40:17 <LeeF> 3
14:40:18 <pgearon> 1
14:40:18 <kasei> 3 (BIND/AS)
14:40:19 <AxelPolleres> 3 
14:40:22 <MattPerry> 1
14:40:22 <bglimm> 1
14:40:26 <AndyS> BIND AS (at this current moment) May change based on experience
14:40:31 <ivan> 3 (put it this way, let us keep to other syntaxes)
14:41:13 <SteveH> AxelPolleres: if there are comments we might change, but we have a solution everyone can live with
14:41:36 <bglimm> bglimm has left #sparql
14:41:51 <bglimm> bglimm has joined #SPARQL
14:41:51 <SteveH> pgearon: people I've spoken to don't have an intuition re. BIND, we know what it means
14:41:52 <AndyS> strawpoll was 4(BIND AS)/3(LET :=)
14:42:01 <LeeF> Surprised to hear that, since (expr AS ?var) is pretty much exactly what SQL does
14:42:09 <SteveH> .. people prefer the word LET
14:42:39 <SteveH> AxelPolleres: midl preference for BIND AS
14:42:43 <SteveH> ... need to go ahead
14:42:44 <AxelPolleres> PROPOSED: Close ISSUE-57 with the semantics as per the rewriting in and using the syntax (BIND expr AS ?var)
14:42:59 <pgearon> sure, I agree that people understand "AS". It's actually the word "BIND" that is the problem.
14:44:21 <LeeF> pgearon, I see, thanks
14:44:36 <ivan> s/the/on the/
14:44:45 <SteveH> abstain
14:44:53 <LeeF> +1
14:44:53 <AndyS> +1 caveat the semantics exactly.
14:44:56 <ivan> +1
14:44:56 <SteveH> [on the basis that I think it's clumsy]
14:45:00 <MattPerry> +1
14:45:05 <AxelPolleres> +1
14:45:08 <pgearon> abstain
14:45:12 <NickH> 0.9
14:45:16 <kasei> +1
14:45:18 <bglimm> abstain
14:45:19 <OlivierCorby> abstain
14:45:24 <cbuilara_> abstain
14:45:38 <AxelPolleres> RESOLVED: Close ISSUE-57 with the semantics as per the rewriting in �and using the syntax (BIND expr AS ?var)
14:45:45 <AxelPolleres> close ISSUE-57
14:45:45 <trackbot> ISSUE-57 Assignment/LET closed
14:45:51 <SteveH> 6 abstensions?
14:45:53 <LeeF> with SteveH, pgearon, bglimm, OlivierCorby, cbuilara_ abstaining
14:45:54 <SteveH> 5 sorry
14:46:00 <Zakim> -pgearon
14:46:07 <pgearon> [on the basis that I would prefer different syntax, but agree with the principle]
14:46:12 <cbuilara_> +q
14:46:21 <SteveH> AxelPolleres: discussions on federation
14:46:25 <AxelPolleres> topic: federation
14:46:55 <LeeF> ack cbuilara_
14:46:57 <cbuilara_> I'm trying to talk
14:46:59 <cbuilara_> +q
14:47:01 <AxelPolleres>
14:47:10 <Zakim> +pgearon
14:47:54 <AxelPolleres> Carlos: implicit order should be respected
14:48:07 <AxelPolleres>
14:49:31 <SteveH> AxelPolleres: under which conditions are variables bound?
14:49:42 <SteveH> ... how to deal with errors in svc call
14:49:59 <SteveH> ... current doc is quite restrictive, any failed svc fails query, do we want that
14:50:35 <SteveH> ... on drawback is order in which call is executed is implicit, determined by engine
14:51:04 <SteveH> ... ...
14:51:17 <AxelPolleres> {SERVICE ?X {s1 p1 ?o}  s2 p2 ?X }   
14:51:25 <AxelPolleres> {s2 p2 ?X  SERVICE ?X {s1 p1 ?o}  }
14:51:36 <SteveH> ... would have the same meaning in carlo's defn.
14:51:44 <SteveH> ... impl. needs to determine the order
14:52:06 <SteveH> ... it seems to work, and [sth] is still defined
14:52:19 <SteveH> ... one alternative is to say that it's the same as graphpattern
14:52:25 <SteveH> ... but then need to define scope
14:52:27 <SteveH> q+
14:52:54 <AxelPolleres> ack SteveH
14:53:13 <ivan> ack cbuilara_ 
14:53:21 <AxelPolleres> SteveH: order-intependence is appealing, but want to hear from someone who implemented it
14:53:24 <SteveH> SteveH: would like to hear from someone with impl. experience
14:53:27 <cbuilara_> +q
14:54:11 <SteveH> cbuilara_, well defined patterns, don't have impl. yet[?]
14:54:16 <SteveH> ... with order
14:54:33 <cbuilara_> well f
14:54:46 <cbuilara_> dewell defined patterns -> well designed patterns
14:55:23 <SteveH> AxelPolleres: current doc says variable must be bound, but doesn't explain meaning
14:55:26 <kasei> q+
14:55:42 <AxelPolleres> ack cbuilara_
14:55:57 <SteveH> kasei: if were going with var. endpoints I think better would be potentiall bound that we've already got
14:56:01 <AxelPolleres>
14:56:10 <SteveH> kasei, that would go hand in hand with error conditions
14:56:30 <SteveH> ... if error doesn't abort potential bound is the way to go
14:56:42 <SteveH> AxelPolleres: would you accept that the variable might not be bound
14:57:05 <SteveH> kasei: I think the query planner has to know that the var is potentially bound otherwise users will never be able to figure it out
14:57:11 <SteveH> q+ to ask about ISWC
14:57:24 <SteveH> ... don't see any reason to prevent it, assuming error doesnt abot query
14:58:20 <kasei> SteveH, my ideas on why that might be useful were within UNIONs and OPTIONALs
14:58:32 <SteveH> kasei, ah, ok, makes sense
14:58:44 <SteveH> AxelPolleres, certainly/potential bound needs more discussion
14:58:50 <SteveH> AxelPolleres: certainly/potential bound needs more discussion
14:58:54 <SteveH> ... ties in with error handling
15:00:03 <Zakim> -MattPerry
15:00:08 <AxelPolleres> summary: fed issues to be further discussed next time, certainly bound vs potentially bound needs discussion, ties in with error handling, what does call with "unbound" mean? error or something else? other comments (Greg's), etc.
15:00:09 <SteveH> parallel with FILTER errors
15:00:29 <SteveH> AndyS: have other comments on doc to deal with
15:00:44 <SteveH> ... kasei's is significant
15:00:58 <kasei> the content was mostly good, but it's in a very different style...
15:01:01 <SteveH> AxelPolleres: more dicussion on ML please
15:01:08 <ivan> zakim, drop me
15:01:08 <Zakim> Ivan is being disconnected
15:01:10 <Zakim> -Ivan
15:01:20 <bglimm> Zakim, unmute me
15:01:20 <Zakim> bglimm should no longer be muted
15:02:15 <SteveH> bye
15:02:18 <Zakim> -SteveH
15:02:19 <Zakim> - +1.617.553.aaaa
15:02:22 <bglimm> bye
15:02:24 <SteveH> AndyS, good!
15:02:26 <Zakim> -kasei
15:02:28 <Zakim> -bglimm
15:02:31 <Zakim> -NickH
15:02:32 <Zakim> -OlivierCorby
15:02:35 <AxelPolleres> nothing on the official ISWC sched�ule. but we should meet up
15:02:37 <Zakim> -pgearon
15:02:40 <AndyS> kasei ?
15:02:43 <Zakim> -AxelPolleres
15:02:44 <cbuilara_> bye
15:02:47 <Zakim> -AndyS
15:02:48 <AxelPolleres> adjourned
15:02:48 <kasei> yes?
15:02:52 <cbuilara_> cbuilara_ has left #sparql
15:03:05 <Zakim> -??P27
15:03:06 <Zakim> SW_(SPARQL)10:00AM has ended
15:03:07 <Zakim> Attendees were AxelPolleres, [IPcaller], AndyS, OlivierCorby, SteveH, NickH, Ivan, kasei, MattPerry, +1.617.553.aaaa, bglimm, pgearon
15:03:07 <AndyS> Do you have an impl of SPARQL HTTP I can test against?
15:03:23 <kasei> the REST stuff?
15:03:34 <AndyS> StveH, ditto - what's a good 4Store public server to test against?
15:03:39 <AndyS> yes - REST stuff
15:03:49 <AndyS> SteveH, ditto - what's a good 4Store public server to test against?
15:03:57 <kasei> i don't think so... KjetilK has a partial implementation somewhere, but I'm not sure how complete it is...
15:04:06 <SteveH> AndyS, hm... BBC guys have one, don't know URI offhand
15:05:06 <kasei> i've mostly focused on query/update/service description so far...
15:05:21 <AndyS> OK - will see if BBC has a public facing one.  (not sure it's publically accessible - only via a web appl)
15:05:25 <OlivierCorby> OlivierCorby has left #sparql
15:05:30 <kasei> interested in the http stuff, but it's on the back burner
15:05:39 <SteveH> AndyS, what were you hoping to test, most people firewall off update for e.g.
15:05:53 <AndyS> kasei, what does "implement service description" cover?
15:05:55 <SteveH> AndyS, I think the SPARQL endpoint is publically accessible
15:06:05 <AndyS> SteveH, GET and HEAD => graph naming tests
15:06:14 <SteveH> I don't think we impl. GET
15:06:24 <kasei> hooking it up to the endpoint code and getting dataset descriptions, available extensions functions, etc. in place...
15:06:39 <AndyS> kasei, ack
15:07:44 <kasei> Andy, it's a bit sparse, but see for example:
15:08:41 <AndyS> got to run
15:13:21 <AxelPolleres> thanks all...
15:13:31 <AxelPolleres> rrsagent, make records public