Chatlog 2012-01-31

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.

15:00:53 <RRSAgent> RRSAgent has joined #sparql
15:00:53 <RRSAgent> logging to
15:00:54 <swh> Zakim, this will be SPARQL
15:00:55 <trackbot> RRSAgent, make logs world
15:00:55 <Zakim> Zakim has joined #sparql
15:00:57 <trackbot> Zakim, this will be 77277
15:00:57 <Zakim> ok, trackbot; I see SW_(SPARQL)10:00AM scheduled to start now
15:00:58 <trackbot> Meeting: SPARQL Working Group Teleconference
15:00:58 <trackbot> Date: 31 January 2012
15:01:06 <axelpolleres> I have updated the agenda with more links at:
15:01:07 <AndyS> zakim, who is on the phone?
15:01:07 <Zakim> SW_(SPARQL)10:00AM has not yet started, AndyS
15:01:09 <Zakim> On IRC I see RRSAgent, chimezie, axelpolleres, MattPerry, swh, MacTed, LeeF, ouvasam, SteveH, AndyS, iv_an_ru, ya, NickH, pgearon, kasei, trackbot, ericP, sandro
15:01:19 <AndyS> zakim, this is 77277
15:01:19 <Zakim> ok, AndyS; that matches SW_(SPARQL)10:00AM
15:01:25 <AndyS> zakim, who is on the phone?
15:01:25 <Zakim> On the phone I see kasei, MattPerry, ??P10, +49.897.aaaa, sandro
15:01:27 <bglimm> bglimm has joined #sparql
15:01:32 <AndyS> zakim, ??P10 is me
15:01:32 <Zakim> +AndyS; got it
15:01:36 <Zakim> +??P14
15:01:40 <swh> Zakim, ??P14 is me
15:01:40 <Zakim> +swh; got it
15:02:16 <axelpolleres> Zakim, who is on the phone?
15:02:17 <Zakim> On the phone I see kasei, MattPerry, AndyS, +49.897.aaaa, sandro, swh
15:02:18 <Zakim> +??P19
15:02:30 <bglimm> Zakim, ??P19 is me
15:02:30 <Zakim> +bglimm; got it
15:02:34 <axelpolleres> Zakim, aaaa is me
15:02:35 <Zakim> +axelpolleres; got it
15:02:38 <bglimm> Zakim, mute me
15:02:38 <Zakim> bglimm should now be muted
15:02:51 <axelpolleres> Zakim, who is on the phone?
15:02:51 <Zakim> On the phone I see kasei, MattPerry, AndyS, axelpolleres, sandro, swh, bglimm (muted)
15:02:54 <cbuilara> cbuilara has joined #sparql
15:03:06 <chimezie> chimezie has joined #sparql
15:03:13 <Zakim> +??P21
15:03:20 <cbuilara> zakim, ??P21 is me
15:03:20 <Zakim> +cbuilara; got it
15:03:22 <axelpolleres> Agenda:
15:03:35 <axelpolleres> regrets: Nicholas, Alex
15:03:44 <axelpolleres> chair: Axel Polleres
15:04:01 <chimezie> chimezie has joined #sparql
15:04:10 <axelpolleres> scribe: MattPerry
15:04:32 <axelpolleres> PROPOSED: Approve minutes at 
15:04:34 <MattPerry> topic: admin
15:04:39 <Zakim> +chimezie
15:04:40 <ouvasam> ouvasam has left #sparql
15:05:00 <axelpolleres> RESOLVED: Approve minutes at
15:05:36 <axelpolleres> Next regular meeting: 2012-02-07 @ 15:00 UK / 10:00 EST (scribe: Alex or Nicholas) 
15:05:52 <MattPerry> axel: anything from the RDF working group
15:06:02 <MattPerry> AndyS: nothing to report
15:06:15 <axelpolleres> topic: Graph Store Protocol 
15:06:38 <axelpolleres>
15:06:49 <Zakim> +pgearon
15:07:00 <axelpolleres> Resolutions 2 and 3 from:
15:07:06 <axelpolleres> Consensi from last week:
15:08:07 <MattPerry> chimezie: resolutions apply only to SPARQL 1.1. graph stores, what about things that are not graph stores?
15:08:46 <MattPerry> ... several things were still being discussed in email
15:09:22 <axelpolleres> Zaki, who is on the phone?
15:09:24 <axelpolleres> q?
15:09:35 <MattPerry> ... BASE URI resolution and mt-uri
15:10:12 <axelpolleres> 
15:10:23 <axelpolleres> (comment PF-1 )
15:10:45 <axelpolleres>
15:10:52 <axelpolleres> (comment JL-2)
15:11:13 <axelpolleres> response before from sandro... will use similar wording.
15:12:05 <AndyS>
15:12:05 <axelpolleres>
15:12:09 <axelpolleres> (AL-1)
15:12:33 <MattPerry> axel: do you need approval for that response
15:12:47 <AndyS> DB-3 is editorial - response can be sent.
15:13:29 <MattPerry> chimezie: response mentions linked data protocol question about how to incorporate this into graph store protocol
15:13:38 <AndyS> SJ-1? The response looks ready to go (and is OK).
15:13:53 <MattPerry> axel: we need to fix that before publishing the document
15:14:06 <axelpolleres>
15:15:30 <AndyS> q+ to talk (at some point) about base, append.  Not comment related.
15:16:17 <MattPerry> axe: let's get DB3 and SJ1 out of the way
15:16:26 <MattPerry> s/axe/axel
15:16:35 <MattPerry> axel: go ahead with DB3
15:16:39 <MattPerry> ... anyone looked at SJ1
15:17:29 <MattPerry> ... from myside SJ1 looks ok as well
15:17:34 <chimezie>
15:17:37 <chimezie> SJ-1
15:17:44 <AndyS>
15:17:57 <axelpolleres> sandro: case spelling?
15:18:11 <Zakim> +LeeF
15:18:20 <MattPerry> sandro: looks ok to me
15:18:39 <MattPerry> axel: anything we can do about AL1?
15:18:51 <MattPerry> s/AL1/AL-1
15:19:38 <MattPerry> axel: this is not included in the draft, right?
15:20:14 <MattPerry> chimezie: heard a few different suggestions, don't have a good idea what the consensus of the WG is
15:20:22 <LeeF> I think the WG stands that if the doc is scoped to graph store, then we're OK
15:20:27 <LeeF> right, what Sandro says
15:20:32 <MattPerry> sandro: the scope of the document was the way to handle this
15:20:48 <MattPerry> ... POST append is find if this only applies to SPARQL 1.1 graph stores
15:20:55 <MattPerry> s/find/fine
15:21:17 <AndyS> q?
15:21:24 <MattPerry> chimezie: I can add some text to say what the scope is
15:22:12 <MattPerry> AndyS: I think what we need is a restriction to a certain CASE (i.e. posting to graph rather than to a container)
15:22:21 <AndyS> ackme
15:22:24 <AndyS> ack me
15:22:24 <Zakim> AndyS, you wanted to talk (at some point) about base, append.  Not comment related.
15:23:19 <MattPerry> axel: anything to discuss related to summarizing consensus from last telecon?
15:23:42 <axelpolleres>
15:24:59 <MattPerry> chimezie: I understand wording changes for PATCH
15:26:06 <LeeF> _not necessarily_
15:26:09 <LeeF> right
15:26:20 <MattPerry> axel: graph store protocol is not the same as the SPARQL endpoint URI
15:26:48 <MattPerry> sandro: service IRI is used as the indirect identifier
15:27:07 <axelpolleres> s/is not/does not need to be/
15:27:34 <LeeF> 2 weeks ago :)
15:27:37 <MattPerry> ... confusion on this issue is a problem
15:28:09 <MattPerry> axel: this needs to more explicit in the document
15:29:04 <MattPerry> chimezie: one question was what is the relationship between the service for the graph store and the service for the SPARQL protocol
15:29:30 <sandro> q?
15:29:31 <MattPerry> ... the other question is how do we describe/discover the graph store service
15:30:12 <MattPerry> sandro: for question 1, the SPARQL endpiont URI is not necessarily related to the graph store service URI
15:30:30 <MattPerry> ... a lot of people may think they are the same
15:31:28 <MattPerry> sandro: does this get rid of the notion of a servcie URI?
15:31:35 <MattPerry> chimezie: yes
15:31:56 <MattPerry> sandro: if you do a get on the service, you get a service description
15:32:09 <MattPerry> chimezie: all service description references will be removed
15:32:17 <sandro> (in the old text, to go away)
15:32:25 <MattPerry> ... there will be a few lines about how to address the graph store
15:32:56 <MattPerry> axel: when do you think these changes will be implemented?
15:32:59 <sandro> chime: Planning to remove the notion of Service IRI, and just use the GraphStore IRI.
15:33:02 <MattPerry> ... first we need another review
15:33:05 <sandro> sandro: sounds good
15:33:28 <MattPerry> chimezie: probably Thursday
15:33:38 <axelpolleres> ACTION: chime to send a mail to the group when final wording on GSP is in place
15:33:39 <trackbot> Created ACTION-582 - Send a mail to the group when final wording on GSP is in place [on Chimezie Ogbuji - due 2012-02-07].
15:34:08 <axelpolleres> ACTION: sandro to review GSP upon completion of ACTION-582
15:34:08 <trackbot> Created ACTION-583 - Review GSP upon completion of ACTION-582 [on Sandro Hawke - due 2012-02-07].
15:34:19 <MattPerry> axel: second reviewer?
15:34:46 <axelpolleres> Zakim, pick a victim
15:34:46 <Zakim> Not knowing who is chairing or who scribed recently, I propose bglimm (muted)
15:34:54 <bglimm> Zakim, unmute me
15:34:54 <Zakim> bglimm should no longer be muted
15:35:08 <MattPerry> bglimm: not sure I'm really qualified to review it
15:35:19 <MattPerry> axel: I think it will be ok
15:35:29 <MattPerry> bglimm: I can do a quick review
15:35:39 <bglimm> Zakim, mute me
15:35:39 <Zakim> bglimm should now be muted
15:35:51 <axelpolleres> ACTION: birte to review GSP upon completion of ACTION-582
15:35:51 <trackbot> Created ACTION-584 - Review GSP upon completion of ACTION-582 [on Birte Glimm - due 2012-02-07].
15:36:27 <MattPerry> topic: Test Cases
15:36:33 <LeeF> Right, the ones that are passed by ARQ and RDF::Query, in particular
15:36:56 <MattPerry> axel: looking to approve those that are passed by 2 implementations
15:37:00 <axelpolleres>
15:37:03 <kasei> not represented on that page, the federation tests all pass on both ARQ and RDF::Query.
15:37:14 <MattPerry> axel: any updates to that list?
15:37:44 <MattPerry> kasei: test status are current, but implementation status has changed a bit
15:37:57 <LeeF> :-)
15:38:11 <MattPerry> AndyS: couple of small details that were changed in the test
15:38:20 <MattPerry> .... just fixing mistakes
15:38:35 <MattPerry> kasei: those changes look fine to me
15:38:46 <MattPerry> ... would be good if someone else looks at them
15:38:58 <MattPerry> LeeF: they look fine to me, but I have not looked in detail
15:39:27 <kasei> if we have time, I'd like to discuss the COPY/MOVE tests that I emailed the list about.
15:39:40 <axelpolleres> PROPOSED: approve all non-approved test cases at
15:39:58 <LeeF> Seconded.
15:39:58 <kasei> +1
15:40:03 <AndyS> +1
15:40:03 <axelpolleres> +1
15:40:06 <cbuilara> +1
15:40:18 <axelpolleres> RESOLVED: approve all non-approved test cases at
15:40:45 <AndyS> (cbuilara? - were the changes OK with you?)
15:40:56 <MattPerry> axel: also have 100% coverage on the query language tests
15:41:04 <LeeF> big kudos to Andy and Greg as shining examples for the rest of the SPARQL implementation world!
15:41:18 <axelpolleres> PROPOSED: approve all non-approved test cases at
15:41:22 <LeeF> seconded
15:41:33 <AndyS> +1
15:41:38 <MattPerry> +1
15:41:44 <kasei> +1
15:42:05 <axelpolleres> RESOLVED: approve all non-approved test cases at
15:42:22 <kasei> q+
15:42:30 <MattPerry> axel: Update Tests: still don't have 100% coverage
15:42:43 <LeeF> ack kasei
15:43:10 <MattPerry> kasei: found some significant problems with the update shortcuts
15:43:45 <MattPerry> ... the text says COPY/MOVE equivelent to e.g. DROP + MOVE, but is this really the case?
15:43:52 <LeeF> I've reviewed Greg's notes and agree that the definitions are broken as-is.
15:44:11 <MattPerry> s/DROP + MOVE/DROP + ADD
15:44:15 <AndyS> Suggestion - let's not approve the update tests today, discuss on email, and move on to the easy ones we can pass (results formats).  Need Paul as  update editor.
15:44:35 <AndyS> The tests are excellent in finding this.
15:45:00 <MattPerry> kasei: copy graph to itself intuitively should be a no-op but strictly following the spec gets rid of the graph
15:45:00 <axelpolleres> COPY/MOVE definitions need to be fixed in terms of calling them shortcuts
15:45:20 <pgearon> I agree with kasei on the problems with the language inconsistency
15:46:17 <MattPerry> pgearon: The language inconsistency should be fixed
15:46:53 <chimezie> Zakim, mute me
15:46:53 <Zakim> chimezie should now be muted
15:47:04 <MattPerry> pgearon: I'd be inclined to use the equivalent operations and say if it's the same graph it becomes a no-op
15:47:30 <MattPerry> kasei: still have the issue of 1 operation vs a set of operations
15:47:38 <AndyS> q+
15:47:58 <MattPerry> ... are the shortcuts atomic?
15:48:19 <MattPerry> LeeF: greg, would you prefer atomic or not?
15:48:26 <axelpolleres> ACTION: Paul to suggest some fixing of the wording regarding COPY/MOVE equivalent operations (reagrding atomicity and remarking that some are no-op) and about failure on empty graphs
15:48:26 <trackbot> Created ACTION-585 - Suggest some fixing of the wording regarding COPY/MOVE equivalent operations (reagrding atomicity and remarking that some are no-op) and about failure on empty graphs [on Paul Gearon - due 2012-02-07].
15:48:59 <MattPerry> kasei: I'd be happy to not require the shortcuts but don't think this is an option
15:49:49 <MattPerry> AndyS: the word atomic is used in 2 different places
15:50:04 <MattPerry> .. for update requests and in the formal definitions
15:50:17 <MattPerry> ... I don't think it needs to be in the formal section
15:50:37 <axelpolleres> "By 'atomic operation' we mean that the operation performs the described transformation of the Graph Store either completely or leaves the Graph Store unchanged, i.e., the result is either GS' or GS (in case of error)."
15:51:15 <MattPerry> ... If we remove atomic from the formal section, this may fix the problem
15:51:50 <LeeF> kasei, if the word "atomic" were removed from the formal definition of an operation, would you be OK with that? 
15:52:15 <kasei> LeeF: the word? or that whole sentence?
15:52:41 <MattPerry> AndyS: if there is no reference to SILENT in the formal section, then error handling is outside of the formal definition
15:52:49 <kasei> s/LeeF:/LeeF,/
15:53:00 <LeeF> the word, I guess?
15:53:07 <LeeF> But I guess the whole sentence
15:53:08 <LeeF> now that I read it
15:53:09 <LeeF> :)
15:53:43 <MattPerry> LeeF: removing "atomic" removes a requirement
15:53:47 <kasei> q+
15:53:54 <LeeF> ack AndyS
15:54:07 <MattPerry> AndyS: you could say these operations describe the before and after state of the graph store
15:54:11 <pgearon> +q
15:54:54 <MattPerry> axel: I think you're right that we can drop it
15:55:06 <axelpolleres> q?
15:55:16 <AndyS> ack kasei
15:55:23 <MattPerry> kasei: I'm worried that we are going to require code changes
15:55:34 <LeeF> It's a bug fix
15:55:36 <MattPerry> ... for people that used the equivalent expanded form
15:56:14 <axelpolleres> Agreement to remive "atomic" from
15:57:19 <MattPerry> s/remive/remove
15:57:53 <LeeF> ack pgearon
15:58:13 <MattPerry> pgearon: I'm concerned about a non-atomic implementation during concurrent queries
15:58:21 <MattPerry> ... is this ok?
15:59:07 <MattPerry> AndyS: is it the overall request that should be atomic?
15:59:26 <MattPerry> pgearon: what about while the update is processing
15:59:52 <AndyS> ping - formats tests?  I can stay for +10 mins.
16:00:29 <axelpolleres> ACTION-585, Paul to remove "atomic" from
16:00:29 <trackbot> ACTION-585 Suggest some fixing of the wording regarding COPY/MOVE equivalent operations (reagrding atomicity and remarking that some are no-op) and about failure on empty graphs notes added
16:01:28 <LeeF> want to discuss prop path comments next time - saw some IRC discussion - would be good to have it on mailing list
16:01:31 <Zakim> -LeeF
16:01:48 <Zakim> -chimezie
16:01:49 <axelpolleres> adjourned
16:01:52 <Zakim> -MattPerry
16:01:53 <bglimm> bze
16:01:54 <Zakim> -sandro
16:01:56 <bglimm> bye
16:01:59 <Zakim> -swh
16:02:04 <Zakim> -AndyS
16:02:06 <Zakim> -bglimm
16:02:08 <Zakim> -cbuilara
16:02:12 <axelpolleres> rrsagent, makre records public
16:02:12 <RRSAgent> I'm logging. I don't understand 'makre records public', axelpolleres.  Try /msg RRSAgent help
16:02:22 <axelpolleres> rrsagent, make records public
16:02:33 <Zakim> -axelpolleres
16:02:35 <Zakim> -kasei
16:03:37 <Zakim> -pgearon
16:03:38 <Zakim> SW_(SPARQL)10:00AM has ended
16:03:44 <Zakim> Attendees were kasei, MattPerry, +49.897.aaaa, sandro, AndyS, swh, bglimm, axelpolleres, cbuilara, chimezie, pgearon, LeeF