Chatlog 2012-01-17

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.

14:57:32 <RRSAgent> RRSAgent has joined #sparql
14:57:32 <RRSAgent> logging to
14:57:34 <trackbot> RRSAgent, make logs world
14:57:34 <Zakim> Zakim has joined #sparql
14:57:36 <trackbot> Zakim, this will be 77277
14:57:36 <Zakim> ok, trackbot; I see SW_(SPARQL)10:00AM scheduled to start in 3 minutes
14:57:37 <trackbot> Meeting: SPARQL Working Group Teleconference
14:57:37 <trackbot> Date: 17 January 2012
14:57:42 <LeeF> zakim, this will be SPARQL
14:57:42 <Zakim> ok, LeeF; I see SW_(SPARQL)10:00AM scheduled to start in 3 minutes
14:57:44 <LeeF> Chair: LeeF
14:57:48 <LeeF> Agenda: test suite
14:57:55 <LeeF> Regrets: Axel, AndyS
14:57:59 <LeeF>  Risk: SteveH, Sandro
14:58:06 <LeeF> Regrets: Axel, AndyS, Carlos
14:58:35 <MattPerry> MattPerry has joined #sparql
14:58:42 <Zakim> SW_(SPARQL)10:00AM has now started
14:58:48 <Zakim> +LeeF
15:00:18 <Zakim> +MattPerry
15:00:21 <Zakim> +kasei
15:00:54 <swh> swh has joined #sparql
15:01:11 <Zakim> + +
15:01:27 <Olivier> zakim, aaaa is me
15:01:27 <Zakim> +Olivier; got it
15:01:30 <Zakim> +??P5
15:01:35 <swh> Zakim, ??P5 is me
15:01:35 <Zakim> +swh; got it
15:01:56 <Zakim> +pgearon
15:02:29 <Zakim> +sandro
15:03:05 <LeeF> zakim, who's on the phone?
15:03:05 <Zakim> On the phone I see LeeF, MattPerry, kasei, Olivier, swh, pgearon, sandro
15:03:31 <pgearon> can do that
15:03:35 <LeeF> many thanks
15:03:50 <LeeF> scribenick: pgearon
15:05:05 <pgearon> LeeF: does anyone remember discussion CSV/TSV discussion? (deafening silence)
15:05:08 <bglimm> bglimm has joined #sparql
15:05:46 <Zakim> +??P15
15:05:57 <bglimm> Zakim, ??P15 is me
15:05:57 <Zakim> +bglimm; got it
15:06:02 <bglimm> Zakim, mute me
15:06:02 <Zakim> bglimm should now be muted
15:06:17 <pgearon> LeeF: will not review the CSV/TSV document today
15:07:20 <LeeF> PROPOSED: Approve last week's minutes at
15:07:29 <pgearon> LeeF: going to discuss test suite coverage, and make sure there are ACTIONs in place for people to fill in the holes
15:08:19 <LeeF> RESOLVED: Approve last week's minutes at
15:08:39 <LeeF> Next meeting is 1/24/2012 at same time and place
15:08:45 <Olivier> regrets
15:09:11 <LeeF> topic: Graph Store Protocol & Service Description
15:09:17 <LeeF>
15:09:22 <LeeF> Looking at point #4
15:11:16 <pgearon> kasei: concern that graph store protocol references service description, but SD does not reference the graph store protocol
15:13:01 <pgearon> sandro: don't see a problem with graph store protocol referring to SD, with the SD not knowing anything about it
15:14:57 <pgearon> LeeF: agree that it's OK to say, "this is the vocabulary to use wrt the service description", but in this case section 5.8 of the graph store protocol seems to be talking about getting a different way of getting an SD document that isn't the same as what the SD says - not entirely sure though
15:16:07 <pgearon> LeeF: is the graph store service IRI same or different to graph store IRI?
15:16:21 <pgearon> Sandro: different. May or may not be the same as the endpoint IRI
15:17:16 <kasei> q+
15:17:53 <LeeF> ack kasei
15:18:02 <pgearon> LeeF: 5.8 in the graph store protocol is saying that the service IRI and store IRIs are the same, which I don't agree with
15:18:31 <pgearon> kasei: concerned that graph store protocol casually dropping OPTIONS as a way to get the SD
15:19:02 <pgearon> kasei: SD language sprinkled around the graph store protocol
15:20:51 <pgearon> LeeF and kasei in agreement on graph store protocol document saying that both IRIs are being treated as the same
15:21:26 <pgearon> LeeF: need to improve the text to show that service IRI and protocol IRI are not necessarily the same, though they may be
15:22:03 <pgearon> sandro: if they're not the same, then if you do a GET on the graph store service IRI then should say what you'd get
15:24:26 <pgearon> kasei: all the discussion is on 5.8 which says "informative" and then uses normative language, so we know that Chimezie will update this
15:25:41 <LeeF> Consensuses (consensi) of this discussion:
15:26:05 <LeeF> * GSP Service IRI is not necessarily the same as the SPARQL Protocol Endpoint IRI
15:26:17 <LeeF> * RFC2119 language needs to be removed from 5.8
15:26:25 <LeeF> * Language needs to be clearer on this distinction
15:26:58 <LeeF> Open questions:
15:27:33 <LeeF> * What happens if the IRIs for GSP Service and the Protocol Endpoint are not the same and you do a GET on the GSP Service IRI? particularly if the deployment doesn't involve a SPARQL endpoint at all?
15:27:49 <LeeF> * Should we remove the recommendation to use OPTIONS for this and just go with GET?
15:28:36 <pgearon> LeeF: won't be able to conclude without chimezie, but hopefully can clear up all the issues for him to work with
15:29:01 <LeeF> Also the example in 5.5 implies the same thing that 5.8 implies about the IRIs, and needs to be made clearer
15:30:45 <LeeF> topic: Test Suites
15:30:53 <LeeF>
15:32:35 <pgearon> LeeF: need tests for errors when evaluating aggregates
15:33:36 <pgearon> LeeF: and positive EXISTS tests
15:33:43 <LeeF> ACTION-531?
15:33:43 <trackbot> ACTION-531 -- Olivier Corby to check Query test cases coverage in terms of errors in aggregate evaluation and positiveEXISTS tests -- due 2011-09-27 -- OPEN
15:33:43 <trackbot>
15:33:57 <kasei> I can do it.
15:34:06 <kasei> the EXISTS tests
15:34:09 <kasei> oh. ok :)
15:34:17 <LeeF> close ACTION-531
15:34:18 <trackbot> ACTION-531 Check Query test cases coverage in terms of errors in aggregate evaluation and positiveEXISTS tests closed
15:34:26 <LeeF> ACTION: Greg to propose tests for aggregate evaluation errors
15:34:26 <trackbot> Created ACTION-573 - Propose tests for aggregate evaluation errors [on Gregory Williams - due 2012-01-24].
15:34:35 <LeeF> ACTION: Greg to propose tests for positive use of EXISTS
15:34:35 <trackbot> Created ACTION-574 - Propose tests for positive use of EXISTS [on Gregory Williams - due 2012-01-24].
15:35:30 <pgearon> LeeF: Update tests - not covered: shortcuts (add/move/copy), load, create
15:36:20 <LeeF> close ACTION-517
15:36:20 <trackbot> ACTION-517 Look into negative evaluation tests and "silent success test" possibility for update tests. closed
15:38:12 <pgearon> LeeF: need someone to look at update tests
15:38:29 <pgearon> MattPerry: can do some of them, but not all. ADD, MOVE, COPY
15:38:36 <LeeF> ACTION: Matt to propose tests for ADD, MOVE, and COPY
15:38:36 <trackbot> Sorry, couldn't find user - Matt
15:38:40 <LeeF> ACTION: Matthew to propose tests for ADD, MOVE, and COPY
15:38:41 <trackbot> Created ACTION-575 - Propose tests for ADD, MOVE, and COPY [on Matthew Perry - due 2012-01-24].
15:38:56 <kasei> I'm not sure how we could test CREATE in a portable way.
15:39:07 <LeeF> ACTION: Paul to propose tests for LOAD and - if possible - CREATE
15:39:07 <trackbot> Created ACTION-576 - Propose tests for LOAD and - if possible - CREATE [on Paul Gearon - due 2012-01-24].
15:39:52 <kasei> CREATE already is tested in syntax tests.
15:40:04 <Olivier> Olivier has joined #sparql
15:40:15 <LeeF> ACTION: Axel to propose a negative syntax test for turtle bnodes in DELETE DATA
15:40:16 <trackbot> Created ACTION-577 - Propose a negative syntax test for turtle bnodes in DELETE DATA [on Axel Polleres - due 2012-01-24].
15:40:22 <kasei> q+
15:40:37 <pgearon> Sandro: could test CREATE by seeing if it shows up in the Service Description
15:40:39 <LeeF> ack kasei
15:40:58 <Zakim> -sandro
15:40:59 <pgearon> kasei: graphs do not have to show up in the SD (optional)
15:42:02 <pgearon> LeeF: see if we can use the tests from the last WG to test protocol
15:42:15 <pgearon> LeeF: protocol testing will at least stick with action 495
15:42:42 <pgearon> kasei: testing conformance trivial, but can't think how this will fit into current test framework
15:43:19 <pgearon> kasei: thinking of starting with an endpoint URL and get back a response of "yes/no: it conforms / it doesn't conform"
15:43:46 <pgearon> LeeF: wanted something like that for "protocol", but didn't have bandwidth
15:44:35 <pgearon> LeeF: if something like that is constructed then should be usable for both SD testing and protocol testing
15:45:03 <pgearon> LeeF: even if used for just the life of this WG then that will probably the best way to proceed
15:45:10 <LeeF> ACTION: Greg to talk with Lee about putting a test system in place to test endpoints for protocol and service description conformance
15:45:10 <trackbot> Created ACTION-578 - Talk with Lee about putting a test system in place to test endpoints for protocol and service description conformance [on Gregory Williams - due 2012-01-24].
15:45:26 <bglimm> Zakim, unmute me
15:45:26 <Zakim> bglimm should no longer be muted
15:45:41 <pgearon> LeeF: entailment tests. have a whole bunch, but also some missing ones
15:45:53 <pgearon> bglimm: thinks still has open action to add test cases
15:45:59 <LeeF> close ACTION-547
15:45:59 <trackbot> ACTION-547 Review query 2nd LC as soon as it's ready closed
15:46:10 <LeeF> ACTION-518?
15:46:10 <trackbot> ACTION-518 -- Birte Glimm to add missing test cases to improve -- due 2011-08-16 -- OPEN
15:46:10 <trackbot>
15:46:30 <pgearon> bglimm: need to find the time for these tests
15:46:35 <bglimm> Zakim, mute me
15:46:35 <Zakim> bglimm should now be muted
15:46:53 <pgearon> LeeF: federated query. Some things not covered, but doesn't overly concern me
15:47:58 <pgearon> LeeF: some tests on JSON. Need someone to check if we're missing coverage
15:48:39 <pgearon> LeeF: don't think that protocol and XML format were separated in tests in SPARQL 1
15:49:19 <pgearon> LeeF: letting TSV/CSV ride until AndyS is available
15:49:45 <pgearon> LeeF: any other topics?