This wiki has been archived and is now read-only.

Chatlog 2011-08-09

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.

13:55:41 <LeeF> Chair: LeeF
13:55:44 <LeeF> Scribe: bglimm
13:55:47 <LeeF> Scribenick: bglimm
13:56:32 <LeeF> Agenda: http://www.w3.org/2009/sparql/wiki/Agenda-2011-08-09
13:56:37 <LeeF> LeeF has changed the topic to: Agenda: http://www.w3.org/2009/sparql/wiki/Agenda-2011-08-09 (LeeF)
13:56:44 <SteveH> SteveH has joined #sparql
13:57:07 <Zakim> SW_(SPARQL)10:00AM has now started
13:57:15 <Zakim> +??P2
13:57:21 <bglimm> Zakim, ??P2 is me
13:57:21 <Zakim> +bglimm; got it
13:57:34 <AndyS> AndyS has joined #sparql
13:57:47 <Zakim> +??P3
13:57:54 <AndyS> zakim, ??P3 i sme
13:57:54 <Zakim> I don't understand '??P3 i sme', AndyS
13:57:58 <Zakim> + +1.617.553.aaaa
13:58:00 <AndyS> zakim, ??P3 is me
13:58:00 <Zakim> +AndyS; got it
13:58:04 <LeeF> zakim, aaaa is me
13:58:05 <Zakim> +LeeF; got it
13:58:18 <MattPerry> MattPerry has joined #sparql
13:58:21 <AndyS> Hi there
13:58:25 <AndyS> A lot of echo
13:58:26 <Zakim> +??P4
13:58:31 <SteveH> Zakim, ??P4 is me
13:58:31 <Zakim> +SteveH; got it
13:58:33 <bglimm> Zakim, mute me
13:58:33 <Zakim> bglimm should now be muted
13:58:38 <bglimm> better?
13:59:20 <Zakim> +kasei
13:59:24 <kasei> success!
13:59:51 <cbuilara> cbuilara has joined #sparql
14:00:06 <Zakim> +??P12
14:00:12 <cbuilara> zakim, ??P12 is me
14:00:12 <Zakim> +cbuilara; got it
14:00:29 <Zakim> + +1.603.897.aabb
14:00:39 <MattPerry> zakim, aabb is me
14:00:39 <Zakim> +MattPerry; got it
14:01:00 <axelpolleres> axelpolleres has joined #sparql
14:01:04 <alex> alex has joined #sparql
14:01:52 <bglimm> yes
14:01:56 <LeeF> topic: Admin
14:02:01 <LeeF> PROPOSED: Approve minutes at http://www.w3.org/2009/sparql/meeting/2011-08-02
14:02:05 <Zakim> + +3539154aacc
14:02:49 <LeeF> Regrets: Olivier, Paul, Chimezie
14:02:55 <LeeF> RESOLVED: Approve minutes at http://www.w3.org/2009/sparql/meeting/2011-08-02
14:03:28 <AndyS> zakim, who is on the phone?
14:03:28 <Zakim> On the phone I see bglimm (muted), AndyS, LeeF, SteveH, kasei, cbuilara, MattPerry, +3539154aacc
14:03:46 <alexpassant> that should be me
14:03:53 <alexpassant> zakim, +3539154aacc is me
14:03:53 <Zakim> +alexpassant; got it
14:04:03 <Zakim> + +49.897.aadd
14:04:25 <axelpolleres> Zakim, aadd is probably me
14:04:25 <Zakim> +axelpolleres?; got it
14:04:40 <bglimm> LeeF: Next meeting next week
14:05:06 <bglimm> LeeF: AndyS is set to scribe
14:05:20 <LeeF> Next regular meeting: 2011-08-16 @ 15:00 UK / 10:00 EST (scribe: Andy) 
14:05:48 <bglimm> LeeF: AndyS, anything from the RDF working group?
14:05:56 <bglimm> Zakim, umute me
14:05:56 <Zakim> I don't understand 'umute me', bglimm
14:06:06 <bglimm> Zakim, mute me
14:06:08 <Zakim> bglimm was already muted, bglimm
14:06:13 <bglimm> Zakim, unmute me
14:06:13 <Zakim> bglimm should no longer be muted
14:06:29 <bglimm> Zakim, mute me
14:06:29 <Zakim> bglimm should now be muted
14:06:48 <bglimm> I didn't get what Andy said
14:06:59 <bglimm> I have shitty sound :-(
14:07:07 <LeeF> Andy: Nothing new from RDF WG, but they will probably be reaching a decision on language tagged literals soon
14:07:12 <LeeF> topic: Federated Query
14:08:16 <bglimm> LeeF: We have a federated query review. Carlos, will you discuss further changes by email?
14:08:31 <axelpolleres> q+
14:09:23 <bglimm> greg: The only major issues is that we agreed to not formally specify the endpoint semantics (?), the section is informative, but is wrong
14:09:28 <LeeF> ack axelpolleres
14:09:42 <bglimm> LeeF: I suggest to make the text less formal and keep the section informative
14:10:02 <cbuilara> +q
14:10:02 <bglimm> Axel: As long as the section is informative, I think it is ok. We can change it later
14:10:14 <bglimm> LeeF: I think we should still get the semantics right
14:10:24 <LeeF> ack cbuilara
14:10:48 <bglimm> Carlos: The section was to address the changes suggested by Andy
14:11:37 <bglimm> LeeF: I think we just have to keep working towards convergence
14:11:58 <bglimm> ... Carlos, can you have a look at the comments and further discuss by email?
14:12:02 <bglimm> Carlos: Ok
14:12:04 <axelpolleres> I can take an action to check Greg's review and implications as well... 
14:12:15 <axelpolleres> (would make it easier to remember for me ;-))
14:12:17 <LeeF> ACTION: Axel to look at Greg's review of federated query
14:12:18 <trackbot> Created ACTION-514 - Look at Greg's review of federated query [on Axel Polleres - due 2011-08-16].
14:12:31 <AndyS> What I see in doc is not as Carlos described (from a quick skim) is doc in CVS up to date?
14:13:08 <bglimm> Carlos: I commited a change
14:13:12 <LeeF> topic: Other documents
14:13:15 <kasei> that "ranging over all services" is the part I'm not seeing and have a problem with.
14:13:17 <bglimm> AndyS: I'll read it more carefully then
14:13:42 <bglimm> LeeF: Axel did work on the overview doc and AndyS reviewed it
14:13:50 <bglimm> Axel: I partially adressed the comments
14:13:59 <bglimm> ... est we can to by email
14:14:04 <bglimm> s/est/rest/
14:14:28 <bglimm> ... I will work on it further, but nothing seems critical for publishing
14:14:50 <bglimm> LeeF: Let's see whether we can publish th overview together with fed. query and the protocol oc
14:15:14 <bglimm> Axel: We should probably publish as a FPWD to get some feedback
14:15:36 <bglimm> LeeF: I think it is an important document, but we probably won't get too much feedback on it
14:15:39 <AndyS> q+ to ask about xmlspec / respec ization
14:16:13 <bglimm> LeeF: Can anybody else review the overview doc?
14:16:16 <bglimm> (silence)
14:16:19 <axelpolleres> q+ to ask one more question in the context off the overview doc
14:16:27 <bglimm> LeeF: Matt can you review it?
14:16:32 <LeeF> ACTION: Matthew to review the overview document
14:16:32 <trackbot> Created ACTION-515 - Review the overview document [on Matthew Perry - due 2011-08-16].
14:16:33 <bglimm> Matt: Yes, I can review it
14:16:38 <LeeF> q?
14:16:40 <LeeF> ack AndyS
14:16:40 <Zakim> AndyS, you wanted to ask about xmlspec / respec ization
14:18:14 <bglimm> Axel: I asked on the mailing list about the wiki to HTML script
14:18:19 <bglimm> Zakim, unmute me
14:18:19 <Zakim> bglimm should no longer be muted
14:18:33 <LeeF> zakim, mute bglimm
14:18:33 <Zakim> bglimm should now be muted
14:18:33 <AndyS> q+
14:18:41 <bglimm> Zakim, mute
14:18:41 <Zakim> I don't understand 'mute', bglimm
14:18:46 <bglimm> Zakim, mute me
14:18:46 <Zakim> bglimm was already muted, bglimm
14:18:56 <bglimm> Sandro said it is a lot of work to set the scrpt up
14:19:08 <bglimm> It is only worth doing if we use it several times
14:19:25 <axelpolleres> ok, I can do it manually, just wanted to know whether there's an easy way.
14:20:05 <LeeF> q?
14:20:07 <LeeF> ack axelpolleres
14:20:07 <Zakim> axelpolleres, you wanted to ask one more question in the context off the overview doc
14:20:13 <AndyS> ack me
14:20:14 <bglimm> LeeF: I think we can keep working on the wiki for a while and then manually convert to XML
14:20:31 <bglimm> Axel: Andy had a comment about using named graphs
14:20:56 <bglimm> .. I can avoid using named graphs, so we can get away without them
14:21:12 <bglimm> ... The other thing was the list of all documents, which we now have in all dcs
14:21:23 <bglimm> ... I used a different order than the other docs
14:21:38 <bglimm> ... I ordered to make a nice story in the overview
14:22:19 <bglimm> ... in some of the other documents, we don't have the list. I suggest to link from all other docs to the overview, where we have the list
14:22:40 <bglimm> ...so we would only have one list, which is in the overview doc
14:22:48 <bglimm> +1 to Axel's suggestion
14:23:15 <bglimm> AndyS: I personally don't find it useful to be directed to the overview
14:23:33 <bglimm> ... I find the order we ended up with appropriate
14:24:15 <bglimm> Axel: I don't have a particular order preference for thenon-overview docs, but I do have one for the overview
14:24:51 <bglimm> ... would you be ok to keep the structure of the document, but adjust the list?
14:24:52 <alex> alex has joined #sparql
14:25:21 <bglimm> AndyS: I think the structure should be major areas first and then the minor areas
14:25:21 <SteveH> I have no preference
14:25:30 <kasei> I tend to favor Andy's approach
14:26:51 <bglimm> LeeF: We have slightly more votes for Andy's sugggestion. Axel, can you restructure?
14:27:01 <bglimm> Axel: Yes and it is anyway a FPWD
14:27:14 <axelpolleres> I can restructure, finding time is more the issue.
14:27:24 <bglimm> AndyS: I can't remember how long it takes overall from FPWD to LC
14:27:37 <bglimm> LeeF: FPWD has no fixed duration
14:27:54 <bglimm> ... LC has a minimum time of three weeks I believe
14:27:57 <axelpolleres> Shall we tendentially decide for a short name? proposal: sparql11-overview
14:28:21 <bglimm> LeeF: I am happy with the short name
14:28:29 <bglimm> AndyS: Looks good
14:28:41 <bglimm> LeeF: Let's decide when we decide to publish
14:29:21 <bglimm> ... Neither the chairs nor team contacts did make progress on the CVS document (scribed correctly?)
14:29:48 <axelpolleres> s/CVS/csv-tsv and json/
14:30:07 <bglimm> ... I addressed most of Andy's comments for the protocol doc
14:30:39 <axelpolleres> it should follow the same rules as FROM FROM NAMED, shouldn't it? (didn't check the mails in detail)
14:30:41 <bglimm> ... we still have some discussions
14:31:17 <bglimm> ... Andy can you outline the usecase that you had on the mailing list?
14:31:41 <bglimm> Didn't get what Andy said :-(
14:33:33 <AndyS> AndyS: One possible UC is that the dataset for matching is a new, temporary dataset (maybe retrieved from the web)
14:33:49 <axelpolleres> Lee's way sounds good, USING/USING NAMED is described in Table 2 of the update doc
14:34:26 <bglimm> LeeF: Clearly the spec still needs to be improved
14:34:40 <bglimm> ... but the question whether the current model is acceptable
14:35:01 <axelpolleres> see http://www.w3.org/TR/sparql11-update/#mappingRequestsToOperations
14:35:06 <bglimm> AndyS: Regardless what we decide, the change will change the update doc
14:36:06 <bglimm> Axel: Sounds to me that removing the parameters is in line with the update document
14:36:13 <bglimm> LeeF: If that 
14:36:25 <axelpolleres> Are you sure that  we need to change Update, I don't think so.
14:36:29 <bglimm> LeeF: If you specified it like this, then we might not need a change
14:37:04 <bglimm> AndyS: We have time to do a last cal for update in parallel with the protocol doc
14:37:23 <bglimm> LeeF: Are we happy with the semantics of the protocol or should we consider alternatives?
14:37:38 <bglimm> ... AndyS, do you need more time to think about it?
14:38:00 <axelpolleres> I understand that protocol says that updateReq with parameters simply means that the requested endpoint needs to answer Tr(updateReq,parameters) where Tr just replaces the USING USINGCLAUSES
14:38:05 <bglimm> AndyS: Yes and we are a small group of people and I want to make sure we address the right problem
14:38:19 <bglimm> ... we are not getting enough input
14:38:33 <axelpolleres> this can be defined similarly as the tables in the update document, but it is ok if it defined in the protocol dfocument.
14:39:11 <bglimm> AndyS: Steve, you are another major update implementor. Did you get your head around that?
14:39:26 <bglimm> Steve: It is not a feature that we currently use, so I can't give input
14:39:43 <bglimm> LeeF: Anybody else implementing it?
14:40:03 <bglimm> Axel: How is it for query request now when there are parameters?
14:40:50 <SteveH> Lee's interpretation is the only one that makes sense to me
14:40:54 <bglimm> LeeF: The design for update is different because there are different update requests
14:41:18 <axelpolleres> LeeF: my proposal was that parameters replace any using/using named in any operation part of a request.
14:41:27 <bglimm> ... We don't want to do something that we regret later. Maybe I write up the current design and send it to the list to get feedback
14:41:46 <bglimm> AndyS: That might be a good idea. Any other points, where you need feedback?
14:42:00 <bglimm> LeeF: I think I addressed most points, but I will get back to it
14:42:12 <bglimm> AndyS: Add more example
14:43:16 <bglimm> LeeF: There is still an issue with characters in query strings
14:44:32 <bglimm> ... I'll rewrite the text, to make it clearer
14:44:50 <LeeF> ACTION: Lee to email list with proposed design for dataset parameters in protocol for update requests
14:44:50 <trackbot> Created ACTION-516 - Email list with proposed design for dataset parameters in protocol for update requests [on Lee Feigenbaum - due 2011-08-16].
14:45:44 <bglimm> LeeF: Test case covering
14:45:55 <bglimm> ... Axel, can you give an overview of the status
14:46:13 <bglimm> Axel: We had a couple of actions to evaluate coverage
14:46:28 <bglimm> ... 492 and following
14:46:36 <bglimm> ... for update, the action is done
14:46:47 <axelpolleres> close ACTION-492
14:46:47 <trackbot> ACTION-492 Check coverage of test suite (on Update) closed
14:47:17 <bglimm> 493 is create a summary on the wiki
14:47:23 <axelpolleres> http://www.w3.org/2009/sparql/wiki/TestSuiteCoverage
14:48:00 <bglimm> ... For each area we wanted to have statements from implementors as to who implements the features
14:48:26 <bglimm> ... please have a look and add yourself under implementation or remove yourself as appropriate
14:48:50 <bglimm> ... action 494 is query on greg
14:49:02 <bglimm> greg: I still need to finish it
14:49:11 <AndyS> JSON results test suite broken.
14:49:13 <bglimm> Axel: Yes, it is a lot of work
14:49:51 <bglimm> Axel: 495 is protocol test cases coverage, which should also cover how we test protocol at all
14:49:57 <bglimm> LeeF: No progress yet
14:50:04 <bglimm> Axel: Action 496 is on Chime
14:50:47 <bglimm> ... for the graph store protocol
14:50:59 <bglimm> ... it might need an extension for the manifest structure
14:51:26 <axelpolleres> close ACTION-497
14:51:27 <trackbot> ACTION-497 Check entailment regimes test case coverage closed
14:51:31 <bglimm> Axel: Action 497 is on entailment reg. 
14:51:36 <bglimm> .. that is completed
14:51:50 <bglimm> ... That is the last action on test case coverage
14:52:12 <AndyS> Close ACTION-507
14:52:12 <trackbot> ACTION-507 Draft text for CSV/TSV status para closed
14:52:28 <AndyS> Close ACTION-500
14:52:29 <trackbot> ACTION-500 Review updates in Fed query doc (particularly section 2.4 and 4) for LC readiness closed
14:52:41 <bglimm> ... for update, we have not yet everything covered: http://www.w3.org/2009/sparql/wiki/TestSuiteCoverage#Update
14:52:50 <bglimm> ... Do we need to test silent?
14:53:16 <bglimm> ... In syntax tests that is covered, but sine we cannot test error, it is hard for non-syntax test
14:53:17 <AndyS> Is there not a EvalFail test type?
14:53:24 <bglimm> ... I propose to not test that
14:53:30 <bglimm> ... any objections?
14:53:39 <bglimm> ... silence=agreement?
14:53:56 <kasei> q+
14:54:35 <bglimm> greg: We could create a negative evaluation test
14:54:45 <SteveH> a test would be DROP SILENT GRAPH <http://nosuchgrah>
14:55:16 <SteveH> I think minimal testing for SILENT is OK
14:55:22 <SteveH> but we can test it to an extent
14:55:24 <bglimm> greg: we could probably add something to make such tests possible
14:55:44 <bglimm> Axel: So the proposal is to add negative evaluation tests
14:56:28 <bglimm> greg: We might need a test for success, not a test for the state of the graph store
14:56:48 <bglimm> AndyS: A test without result, just saying that you somehow got through
14:56:57 <bglimm> Axel: I will look into that
14:57:30 <bglimm> LeeF: Shall we record an action?
14:57:35 <axelpolleres> ACTION: Axel to look into negative evaluation tests and "silent success test" possibility for update tests.
14:57:36 <trackbot> Created ACTION-517 - Look into negative evaluation tests and "silent success test" possibility for update tests. [on Axel Polleres - due 2011-08-16].
14:58:34 <bglimm> Axel: Andy suggested to move the negative syntax tests to the syntax test folder
14:59:32 <bglimm> Axel: It is probably o t o move them there. Some tests are negative syntax tests because we disallowed bnodes, but they have not been moved after the decision
14:59:51 <LeeF> Suggest just leaving it as is for now then
14:59:59 <bglimm> Axel: Any volunteers to move the tests?
15:00:52 <bglimm> Axel: We anyway need to action somebody to create the missing update tests. Maybe that person can then also move the tests. 
15:00:57 <axelpolleres> Zakim, pick a victim
15:00:57 <Zakim> Not knowing who is chairing or who scribed recently, I propose SteveH
15:01:26 <bglimm> Steve: No way I can find the time
15:01:35 <bglimm> LeeF: Let's leave it as it is for now
15:01:42 <bglimm> Axel: Next is entailment
15:02:13 <bglimm> ... we should also have negative tests for container membership properties
15:02:25 <Zakim> -alexpassant
15:02:27 <bglimm> no tests for axiomatic triples yet
15:02:51 <bglimm> ... we could just add an ask query for the triples
15:03:08 <bglimm> http://www.w3.org/2009/sparql/wiki/TestSuiteCoverage#Entailment
15:04:30 <bglimm> Axel: It seems we are out of time
15:04:33 <bglimm> yes
15:04:45 <bglimm> Axel: Birte, can you look into completing the test cases
15:04:48 <bglimm> Birte: Yes
15:04:52 <bglimm> adjourned