Chatlog 2012-02-28

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.

14:50:48 <RRSAgent> RRSAgent has joined #sparql
14:50:48 <RRSAgent> logging to
14:50:50 <trackbot> RRSAgent, make logs world
14:50:50 <Zakim> Zakim has joined #sparql
14:50:52 <trackbot> Zakim, this will be 77277
14:50:52 <Zakim> ok, trackbot; I see SW_(SPARQL)10:00AM scheduled to start in 10 minutes
14:50:53 <trackbot> Meeting: SPARQL Working Group Teleconference
14:50:53 <trackbot> Date: 28 February 2012
14:50:59 <AxelPolleres> Agenda:
14:51:06 <AxelPolleres> chair: Axel Polleres
14:51:16 <AxelPolleres> we need a scribe... any volunteers?
14:54:26 <AxelPolleres> scribelist points (from those not having sent regrets) to sandro, chime
14:57:48 <AndyS> AndyS has joined #sparql
14:58:10 <MattPerry> MattPerry has joined #sparql
14:59:17 <Zakim> SW_(SPARQL)10:00AM has now started
14:59:19 <Zakim> +Sandro
#14:59:34 <Zakim> + +49.897.aaaa - is perhaps AxelPolleres?
#14:59:34 <Zakim> -AxelPolleres?
#14:59:36 <Zakim> +AxelPolleres?
14:59:52 <Zakim> +kasei
14:59:54 <sandro> scribe: sandro 
15:00:09 <Zakim> +MattPerry
15:02:09 <AxelPolleres> Zakim, who is on the phone?
15:02:23 <chimezie> chimezie has joined #sparql
15:02:24 <bglimm> bglimm has joined #sparql
15:02:32 <Zakim> On the phone I see Sandro, AxelPolleres, kasei, MattPerry
15:02:38 <chimezie> Zakim, what is the passcode?
15:02:51 <Zakim> +pgearon
15:02:54 <AxelPolleres> Zakim, AxelPolleres is me
15:03:08 <Zakim> the conference code is 77277 (tel:+1.617.761.6200, chimezie
15:03:20 <Zakim> +??P19
15:03:24 <Zakim> +AxelPolleres; got it
15:03:24 <AndyS> zakim, P19 is me
15:03:28 <bglimm> Zakim, ??P19 is me
15:03:41 <bglimm> Zakim, mute me
15:03:49 <Zakim> +[IPcaller]
15:03:52 <chimezie> Zakim, who is on the phone?
15:03:56 <Zakim> sorry, AndyS, I do not recognize a party named 'P19'
15:03:57 <AndyS> zakim, IPCaller is me
15:04:01 <Zakim> +chimezie
15:04:02 <AxelPolleres> sandro and greg talking about the SD validator URL while others join the call
15:04:03 <Zakim> +bglimm; got it
15:04:07 <chimezie> Zakim, mute me
15:04:22 <Zakim> bglimm should now be muted
15:04:29 <AxelPolleres> zakim, who is on the phone?
15:04:32 <Zakim> On the phone I see Sandro, AxelPolleres, kasei, MattPerry, pgearon, bglimm (muted), [IPcaller], chimezie
15:04:39 <Zakim> +AndyS; got it
15:04:42 <sandro> kasei, seems to be basically working.    I can adjust proxy settings as needed.
15:04:48 <Zakim> chimezie should now be muted
15:04:51 <AxelPolleres> topic: admin
15:05:08 <AxelPolleres> PROPOSED: Approve minutes at
15:05:12 <Zakim> On the phone I see Sandro, AxelPolleres, kasei, MattPerry, pgearon, bglimm (muted), AndyS, chimezie (muted)
15:05:37 <AxelPolleres> RESOLVED: Approve minutes at
15:06:27 <AxelPolleres> Next regular meeting: 2012-03-06 @ 15:00 UK / 10:00 EST (scribe: cf. scribe_list) 
15:06:51 <chimezie> Zakim, unmute me
15:06:51 <Zakim> chimezie should no longer be muted
15:07:09 <chimezie> Zakim, mute me
15:07:09 <Zakim> chimezie should now be muted
15:07:10 <AxelPolleres> next week's scribe: chime
15:07:37 <AxelPolleres> RDF Liaison... nothing new
15:08:22 <AxelPolleres> topic: group schedule 
15:08:24 <AxelPolleres>
15:10:52 <sandro> (axel talking through that schedule)
15:12:00 <AxelPolleres> q?
15:12:14 <bglimm> Zakim, unmute me
15:12:14 <Zakim> bglimm should no longer be muted
<sandro> subtopic: Graph Store Protocol
15:12:37 <AxelPolleres> GSP ready for approval from the reviewers.
15:12:37 <bglimm> Zakim, mute me
15:12:37 <Zakim> bglimm should now be muted
15:12:53 <sandro> sandro: Except for possible issue from Greg, I think we're ready to vote for GSP LC at any time
15:13:50 <sandro> greg: I'd appreciate another set of eyes on my point there
15:14:00 <AndyS> Let's resolve to publish.
15:14:08 <sandro> sandro: I'm inclined to agree with Greg, but I think this is editorial
15:14:38 <sandro> we're talking about
15:15:04 <LeeF> LeeF has joined #sparql
15:15:09 <sandro> Revision 1.85  2012/02/28 07:30:14  cogbuji     SPARQL 1.1 Graph Store HTTP Protocol
15:15:44 <Zakim> + +1.617.553.aabb
15:15:46 <sandro> sandro: let's resolve to publish this, but figure out the actual schedule later
15:16:30 <chimezie> Zakim, unmute me
15:16:30 <Zakim> chimezie should no longer be muted
15:16:37 <AxelPolleres> PROPOSED: publish  as as last call public working draft soon on a schedule to be determined
15:16:49 <sandro> chimezie: this all sounds okay
15:17:00 <bglimm> +1 (Uni Ulm)
15:17:08 <pgearon> +1 (Revelytix)
15:17:10 <MattPerry> +1 (Oracle)
15:17:14 <AndyS> +1 (ASF)
15:17:15 <chimezie> +1 (IE)
15:17:16 <kasei> +1 (RPI)
15:17:20 <LeeF> +1 (Cambridge Semantics)
15:17:23 <AxelPolleres> Zakim, who is on the phone?
15:17:23 <Zakim> On the phone I see Sandro, AxelPolleres, kasei, MattPerry, pgearon, bglimm (muted), AndyS, chimezie, LeeF
15:17:25 <sandro> +1 (W3C)  I'm not really happy with some parts of this draft, as discussed elsewhere, but I think we should go ahead and publish, all things considered.
15:17:30 <AxelPolleres> +1 (DERI)
15:17:59 <AndyS> This is LC? sandro's concerns are editorial?
15:18:49 <sandro> My concerns are not editorial, but I'm wiling to let go of them, and let them be addressed by a future WG.
15:19:14 <AxelPolleres> RESOLVED: publish  as as last call public working draft soon on a schedule to be determined (9 x +1, no abstentions, no objections)
15:19:57 <sandro> subtopic: CSV/TSV document
15:20:20 <sandro> AxelPolleres: is the schedule in my mail realistic?
15:21:05 <chimezie> id be happy to review
15:21:41 <sandro> andy: There's one @@ line to take about before reviews, but basically it's ready.
15:21:58 <sandro> andy: I propose to take out that line and make no other changes.
15:22:22 <AxelPolleres> ACTION: Chime to review CSV/TSV for LC readiness
15:22:23 <trackbot> Created ACTION-593 - Review CSV/TSV for LC readiness [on Chimezie Ogbuji - due 2012-03-06].
15:23:09 <sandro>    JB-9 comment on CSV
15:23:57 <sandro> AndyS: There's an underlying problem.    But the conclusion last week was that CVS is meant to be lossy, sort of, so this is appropriate.
15:24:24 <Zakim> +EricP
15:24:25 <sandro> AxelPolleres: is there a response drafted, .... no.
15:24:50 <sandro> AxelPolleres: So our response to this comment will be No Change.
15:25:32 <sandro> s/CVS/CSV/
15:25:41 <AxelPolleres> Zakim, pick a victim
15:25:41 <Zakim> Not knowing who is chairing or who scribed recently, I propose kasei
15:26:05 <AxelPolleres> ACTION: greg to review CSV/TSV for MC readiness
15:26:05 <trackbot> Created ACTION-594 - Review CSV/TSV for MC readiness [on Gregory Williams - due 2012-03-06].
15:26:22 <sandro> action-594?
15:26:22 <trackbot> ACTION-594 -- Gregory Williams to review CSV/TSV for MC readiness -- due 2012-03-06 -- OPEN
15:26:22 <trackbot>
15:26:42 <AxelPolleres> we strive for getting JB-9 answered and acknowledged before LC publication
15:27:08 <AxelPolleres> subtopic: Overview document
15:27:56 <kasei> Zakim, who is talking?
15:28:05 <sandro> AxelPolleres: Should we re-order the documents described in Overview, or elsewhere?    I found it easier to explain in the Overview order.
15:28:09 <Zakim> kasei, listening for 12 seconds I heard sound from the following: AxelPolleres (88%)
15:28:17 <sandro> AxelPolleres: Otherwise, we're close to LC ready.
15:28:23 <AndyS> Is this REC track?
15:28:51 <sandro> sandro: So if you had to change the order, you'd have to rework it to get it to flow?
15:29:01 <sandro> AxelPolleres: Right.
15:29:52 <sandro> we're talking about
15:30:28 <sandro> AxelPolleres: It seemed most logical to talk about query, then the results format.
15:30:41 <sandro> AxelPolleres: Anyone object to leaving order as is?
15:32:05 <sandro> andy: some spurious links, editorial stuff still to do.
15:32:21 <sandro> (discussion about if it's rec track; seems to be.)
15:32:43 <sandro> AxelPolleres: I'll dig through all the comments, and check it over, clean up links, try to get it ready within a week.
15:32:45 <AxelPolleres> ACTION: Axel to get Overview ready for review in a week
15:32:45 <trackbot> Created ACTION-595 - Get Overview ready for review in a week [on Axel Polleres - due 2012-03-06].
15:33:19 <LeeF> I will
15:33:36 <LeeF> though the more emails that you send me remindimg me about it, the better :)
15:33:48 <AxelPolleres> ACTION: Lee to review Overview doc for LC readiness by completion of ACTION-595
15:33:48 <trackbot> Created ACTION-596 - Review Overview doc for LC readiness by completion of ACTION-595 [on Lee Feigenbaum - due 2012-03-06].
15:34:04 <MattPerry> I can do it
15:34:19 <AxelPolleres> ACTION: Matt to review Overview doc for LC readiness by completion of ACTION-595
15:34:19 <trackbot> Sorry, couldn't find user - Matt
15:34:45 <AxelPolleres> ACTION: MattPerry to review Overview doc for LC readiness by completion of ACTION-595
15:34:45 <trackbot> Sorry, couldn't find user - MattPerry
15:34:55 <AxelPolleres> ACTION: Matthew to review Overview doc for LC readiness by completion of ACTION-595
15:34:55 <trackbot> Created ACTION-597 - Review Overview doc for LC readiness by completion of ACTION-595 [on Matthew Perry - due 2012-03-06].
15:35:05 <chimezie> Zakim, mute me
15:35:05 <Zakim> chimezie should now be muted
15:35:22 <AxelPolleres>
15:36:11 <sandro> axel: If everything goes right, we could vote on CSV and Overview next week.
15:37:43 <sandro> sandro: I was wondering if there are Comments that editors might have missed that would affect their readiness.
15:37:49 <AndyS> PA-1 is an update comment - looks editorial - not sure though
15:37:57 <sandro> axel: Let's talk about that after this.
15:38:01 <AndyS> s/PA-1/PA-2/
15:38:20 <AxelPolleres> topic: JP-4 comment and property paths
15:38:56 <sandro> axel: We discussed two weeks ago that we needed someone to spec this out if we're going to cchange anything on property paths.
15:39:22 <sandro> ... either we add a DISTINCT keywork, or we leave as it is and tell commenter that's for the future.
15:39:31 <sandro> ... Andy said he'd be willing ti give it a try
15:39:51 <sandro> ... Had any chance to reflect on this, Andy?
15:40:41 <LeeF> I like the new proposal, because while it's not really the same, it reminds me a lot of greedy vs. non-greedy matching in traditional regexp (.* vs .*?)
15:40:45 <sandro> AndyS: I spent some more time thinking about it, and came up with a modified proposal, with new non-counting operators.   Then move counting ones to a syntax that reflects counting.   I'm wondering if that's of interest to people.
15:40:48 <AndyS> * and + non-counting then counting {*} {+}
15:40:56 <pgearon> It interests me
15:41:01 <AxelPolleres> what about  /
15:41:02 <AxelPolleres> ?
15:41:17 <sandro> axel: What about concat?
15:41:33 <sandro> AndyS: I think that's orthogonal to JP-4 so let's deal with it separately
15:42:14 <sandro> AxelPolleres: They both suggest the semantics of path expressions is non-counting.    If we have star, wouldn't it then still count something, if there is concatenation?
15:42:42 <sandro> (not sure I wrote that right)
15:42:44 <AxelPolleres>   s p o . o q  r. s p o2. o2 q r .
15:43:01 <AxelPolleres> s p*/q* r .
15:43:37 <sandro> AndyS: JP-4 is more limited than that.
15:43:50 <AndyS> s :p/:q r . => s :p ?x . ?x q r .
15:43:54 <sandro> AndyS: Some natural equivalencies no longer hold.
15:44:12 <AndyS> s p/q r . => s p ?x . ?x q r .
15:44:49 <sandro> AndyS: What's important is that the dups occur because of projection, in one shape or form.   We've defined slash, at the moment, with an internal variable which can be projected away, and projection can give you duplicates.
15:45:08 <sandro> AxelPolleres: These modified operators are intended as an alternative to DISTINCT?
15:45:16 <sandro> AndyS: Yes.   You could have both, though.
15:45:23 <sandro> axel: Any opinions?
15:45:50 <sandro> ... my opinion is DISTINCT is easy to explain, but this is also easy to explain.   Do we want both...?
15:46:02 <kasei> I much prefer Andy's proposed syntax w.r.t. the existing syntax and future extension, but it obviously doesn't cover all the desires of JP-4.
15:46:06 <sandro> AxelPolleres: I think we should have DISTINCT anyway.   
15:46:37 <MattPerry> I like Andy's new proposal better than DISTINCT keyword
15:46:45 <kasei> q+
15:47:10 <AndyS> See also WM-1
15:47:18 <sandro> kasei: Before Andy goes off and specs, shall we try to engage all the folks who've commented on property paths?
15:47:22 <sandro> axel: Good idea
15:47:46 <sandro> axel: Andy, can you write to these folks with the different options?
15:48:15 <sandro> AndyS: Do you want something that makes a proposal or discusses alternatives?
15:48:25 <sandro> axel: somewhere in between, but that's a good point.
15:48:49 <LeeF> +1 to what Andy just said :)
15:49:01 <sandro> AndyS: Pushback about DISTINCT is it's a big word to put in a triple pattern.  :-)
15:49:15 <sandro> axel: Proposal on table is to have modified operators.
15:49:34 <sandro> axel: Can you formulate this into email to JP-4 and see if they would be okay with it?
15:50:09 <sandro> AndyS: I sent email to the group yesterday trying to capture this idea in bullet points
15:50:35 <AndyS>
15:51:08 <AndyS> starts with a bullet point summary (do you agree?)
15:52:05 <sandro> AndyS: Given the time, and how new the material is, .... is this something we want to push right now?
15:52:17 <sandro> AxelPolleres: Yes, I want to reply to this email
15:53:02 <sandro> axel: General strategy -- get something together for us, which we can send to commenters?
15:53:12 <sandro> sandro: Why not put into spec now?
15:53:31 <sandro> AndyS: It could do with some threshing before being put into spec form.
15:53:56 <sandro> axel: Let's have this discussion.
15:54:00 <sandro> (in email)
15:54:21 <sandro> axel: Would anyone object to this proposal of having two kinds of operators?
15:54:45 <AxelPolleres> Strawpoll, would  anyone object to  {*} and {+}  counting operators and *  and + default to non-counting?
15:55:10 <sandro> say -1 if you object, +1 if you like it, 0 if you abstain
15:55:13 <AndyS> (if anyone has a general syntax for "this operator is distinct" then pls email  c.f. greedy REs)
15:55:19 <kasei> +1
15:55:20 <MattPerry> +1
15:55:22 <AxelPolleres> +1
15:55:26 <ericP> 0
15:55:27 <sandro> 0 don't understand issue yet
15:55:27 <chimezie> +1 (don't like the syntax of the different operators)
15:55:31 <pgearon> +1
15:55:39 <bglimm> +1 (but would like a better syntax, but no idea about which)
15:55:43 <chimezie> s/operators/operators, however
15:55:51 <LeeF> +1 
15:55:57 <sandro> +? and *? are used someimes in kleene situations
15:56:07 <sandro> (I think)
15:56:20 <AxelPolleres> we'll continue based on that per email
15:56:38 <sandro> topic: Unassigned Comments
15:56:38 <AxelPolleres>
15:56:45 <kasei> i think some of the new-ish comments were assigned last week, but the wiki wasn't updated.
15:56:54 <AndyS> May work - need to be careful about variables but greedy tokenization rules.
15:57:04 <AndyS> I updated the wiki
15:57:45 <AxelPolleres> JB-10, WM-9,  should be treated along JP-4
15:58:20 <AxelPolleres> Paul?
15:58:21 <sandro> AxelPolleres: Paul, can you take PA-2 ?
15:58:30 <AndyS> re +? the defaults across all ops get a bit odd maybe.  Need to work on some examples.
15:58:43 <sandro> pgearon: I'll take a look.   Probably wont have time before next meeting, though.
15:59:05 <sandro> AxelPolleres: I'll put you down for it for now.
16:00:20 <AndyS> If someone wants to handle DRD-1, feel free. To me, it's orthog to cardinality.
16:01:15 <AxelPolleres> ACTION: Axel to summarize open comments by next week. 
16:01:15 <trackbot> Created ACTION-598 - Summarize open comments by next week.  [on Axel Polleres - due 2012-03-06].
16:01:16 <kasei> AndyS, I agree it's orthogonal. But if we're opening back up syntax decisions, I think DRD-1 is worth discussing.
16:01:33 <sandro> ADJOURN
16:01:34 <Zakim> -EricP
16:01:35 <Zakim> -chimezie
16:01:36 <bglimm> bye�
16:01:39 <MattPerry> bye
16:01:39 <AndyS> e.g PATH(...) ??
16:01:41 <Zakim> -bglimm
16:01:42 <AxelPolleres> �thanks all
16:01:42 <Zakim> -Sandro
16:01:47 <Zakim> -MattPerry
16:01:49 <Zakim> -AndyS
16:01:51 <Zakim> -pgearon
16:01:57 <Zakim> -kasei
16:02:05 <Zakim> -AxelPolleres
16:02:19 <AxelPolleres> rrsagent, make records public
16:02:31 <AxelPolleres> sandro, will you get the minutes out?
16:02:41 <AxelPolleres> and do you have another minute?
16:03:18 <Zakim> -LeeF
16:03:19 <Zakim> SW_(SPARQL)10:00AM has ended
16:03:19 <Zakim> Attendees were Sandro, +49.897.aaaa, kasei, MattPerry, pgearon, AxelPolleres, chimezie, bglimm, AndyS, +1.617.553.aabb, LeeF, EricP