Last modified on 9 January 2012, at 10:53
Please justify/explain all edits to this page, in your "edit summary" text.
<bglimm> PRESENT: Andy, Matt, SteveH, Greg, Birte, Sandro, Axel, Lee, carlos, Olivier 15:03:24 <AxelPolleres> Paul joined 14:57:49 <RRSAgent> RRSAgent has joined #sparql 14:57:49 <RRSAgent> logging to http://www.w3.org/2012/01/03-sparql-irc 14:57:51 <trackbot> RRSAgent, make logs world 14:57:51 <Zakim> Zakim has joined #sparql 14:57:53 <trackbot> Zakim, this will be 77277 14:57:53 <Zakim> I do not see a conference matching that name scheduled within the next hour, trackbot 14:57:54 <trackbot> Meeting: SPARQL Working Group Teleconference 14:57:54 <trackbot> Date: 03 January 2012 14:58:09 <AxelPolleres> chair: Axel Polleres 14:58:19 <AxelPolleres> agenda: http://www.w3.org/2009/sparql/wiki/Agenda-2012-01-03 14:58:35 <MattPerry> MattPerry has joined #sparql 14:59:37 <bglimm> bglimm has joined #sparql 14:59:39 <kasei> AxelPolleres: are we using Zakim or freeconference? 14:59:42 <AndyS1> AndyS1 has joined #sparql 14:59:55 <AxelPolleres> kasei: just trying... 15:00:07 <SteveH> I'm on freeconference 15:00:15 <AxelPolleres> Zakim ist down still... let's use freeconference (see http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-dawg/2012JanMar/0009.html) 15:00:36 <Olivier> Olivier has joined #sparql 15:01:12 <bglimm> So I have to dial to the US? No voip? That might be difficult 15:01:27 <SteveH> it's not a very good line from the UK, quite noisy 15:01:55 <carlos> I can't connect to that phone :( 15:02:44 <AxelPolleres> We have Andy, Matt, SteveH, Greg, on the phone... who else? 15:03:16 <AxelPolleres> Birte, sorry, maybe Sandro has some alternative? 15:03:24 <AxelPolleres> Paul joined 15:03:38 <SteveH> bglimm, if you can call a UK number I can join you to the call? 15:03:43 <sandro> I thought the site said something about internet calls. 15:03:55 <AxelPolleres> (carlos, birte having technical problems...) 15:03:55 <SteveH> sandro, I couldn't find anything just now 15:04:36 <AndyS1> And the local chemical warning siren is testing (I hope) here :-| 15:04:52 <AxelPolleres> birte joined 15:05:10 <AxelPolleres> sandro joined 15:05:48 <sandro> sandro has changed the topic to: No Zakim today. 1-213-342-3000 code 4264131 15:05:49 <Olivier> I joined the telcon 15:05:58 <AxelPolleres> Olivier joined 15:06:11 <bglimm> I called the US number via Skype 15:06:26 <bglimm> but you have to have Skype credit to do that 15:06:33 <AxelPolleres> agenda: http://www.w3.org/2009/sparql/wiki/Agenda-2012-01-03 15:06:47 <sandro> (fwiw, Google Voice can't call this number :-( ) 15:06:59 <bglimm> AxelPolleres: Happy new year everybody 15:07:08 <AxelPolleres> topic: admin 15:07:09 <bglimm> ... we had several resolutions last year 15:07:20 <AxelPolleres> PROPOSED: Approve minutes at http://www.w3.org/2009/sparql/meeting/2011-12-20 15:07:46 <AndyS1> +1 15:07:47 <bglimm> ...Comments on the minutes? 15:07:50 <bglimm> (silence) 15:07:57 <AxelPolleres> RESOLVED: Approve minutes at http://www.w3.org/2009/sparql/meeting/2011-12-20 15:08:10 <bglimm> Next regular call in a week's time 15:08:11 <AxelPolleres> Next regular meeting: 2012-01-10 @ 15:00 UK / 10:00 EST (scribe: Axel Polleres) 15:08:20 <bglimm> Axel is next on the scribe list 15:08:32 <bglimm> No report from the RDF WG? 15:08:43 <AndyS1> Nothing to report 15:09:04 <bglimm> We skip this then and go to the publication issues 15:09:30 <bglimm> We have several documents to be published, but Jan 2nd is no longer an option 15:09:41 <bglimm> ... We need to decide on another publication date 15:09:52 <bglimm> ... Jan 5th was discussed on the mailing list 15:09:58 <bglimm> ... Is that feasible? 15:10:29 <bglimm> Sandro: I think 5th is the first available pub date 15:10:39 <bglimm> Axel: We could go for Jan 9th as well 15:11:02 <bglimm> Sandro: We can publish Mondays and Thursdays 15:11:18 <bglimm> Axel: So we could decide for 5th or 10th Jan 15:11:25 <AxelPolleres> 5th or 10th... try for the earliest possible. 15:11:30 <bglimm> ... We could try the earliest possible 15:11:57 <bglimm> ... I used a wrong text on possibly skipping CR 15:12:33 <bglimm> ... it is almost as required, but I suggest to stick exactly to the resolution text 15:13:07 <AxelPolleres> Change the text referring to possibly skipping CR as per last time's resolution: http://www.w3.org/2009/sparql/meeting/2011-12-20#resolution_8 15:13:39 <bglimm> AxelPolleres: I asked myself whether we should do something with the change logs 15:13:55 <bglimm> ... Some documents still have change logs from previous versions 15:14:01 <bglimm> ... These should be removed 15:14:42 <AxelPolleres> let's go through documents 15:14:46 <bglimm> ... we go through the docs one by one 15:14:51 <bglimm> .. starting with Query 15:15:12 <AxelPolleres> Query... mail from Andy: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-dawg/2012JanMar/0007.html 15:15:39 <bglimm> We need to check that it is LC and put in the required comment text 15:15:56 <bglimm> The text for possibly skipping CR is the one from the resolution 15:16:29 <bglimm> Query is ready to go 15:16:30 <AndyS1> query HTML checked into CVS 15:16:37 <AxelPolleres> Entailment regimes ready to go? 15:16:39 <AndyS1> ... under pub/ 15:16:39 <bglimm> AxelPolleres: Entailment Regimes? 15:16:46 <bglimm> bglimm: Ready to go 15:17:01 <AxelPolleres> pub/20120102/WD-sparql11-query-201120105/ 15:17:13 <AxelPolleres> pub/20120102/WD-sparql11-query-20120105/ 15:17:46 <AxelPolleres> pub/20120102/ 15:18:03 <bglimm> AxelPolleres: documents should be in the pub/20120102/ folder 15:19:09 <bglimm> AxelPolleres: Update still had two open comments 15:19:17 <AxelPolleres> http://www.w3.org/2009/sparql/wiki/Comments#Last_Call_comments ... 15:19:28 <bglimm> ... at least they are makred as open on the comments page 15:19:39 <bglimm> BV-5 and NL-1 15:19:44 <AxelPolleres> DB-5 and NL-1 look still open 15:19:59 <bglimm> s/BV-5/DB-5/ 15:20:21 <bglimm> The first one is addressed,, but the wiki was not updated 15:21:13 <AndyS1> http://www.w3.org/2009/sparql/wiki/CommentResponse:DB-5 exists, not linked 15:21:21 <bglimm> Paul?: NL-1 is about query and not update 15:22:19 <bglimm> AxelPolleres: It probably doen't make sense to touch the doc now, we can leave that for a future version of the spec 15:22:25 <AndyS1> (one moment) 15:23:03 <bglimm> ... NL-1 is definitely about Query 15:23:28 <bglimm> AndyS1: Looking at the use-case he must do a full construct 15:23:32 <bglimm> ... due to the filters 15:23:54 <bglimm> ... I can see some restricted cases that we could address with the current design 15:24:34 <bglimm> ... It seems to be a query that should return all touched triples 15:24:43 <LeeF> It's why we put the limitation in 15:24:47 <bglimm> SteveH: We have discussed this at one of the F2Fs 15:24:47 <LeeF> because doing the alternative was too... icky 15:25:06 <bglimm> AxelPolleres: We didn't want to tough this 15:25:16 <bglimm> .... extensions could be put on the future issues list 15:25:33 <bglimm> ... we could use our standard reply for future issues 15:25:43 <bglimm> ... I can draft a reply along these lines 15:25:51 <bglimm> ... unless there are other volunteer 15:26:04 <bglimm> AndyS1: I don't even fully understand his example 15:26:16 <bglimm> AxelPolleres: I'll just do a high level reply 15:26:52 <bglimm> AndyS: I wouldn't go into extensions of the short form. There is always the long form for complicated use cases. 15:27:08 <AxelPolleres> ACTION: Axel to draft a reply to NL-1 pointing �to stay on the basic level for the CONSTRUCT WHERE shortcut, and that there's the full form for more complex cases 15:27:09 <trackbot> Could not create new action (failed to parse response from server) - please contact sysreq with the details of what happened. 15:27:09 <trackbot> Could not create new action (unparseable data in server response: local variable 'd' referenced before assignment) - please contact sysreq with the details of what happened. 15:27:52 <AndyS1> His use case does seem clear (to me) what the template would be if UNION and filters involved (e.g. UNION arms have partial overlaps of patterns used) 15:27:58 <bglimm> AxelPolleres: No actions either. Comments seem addressable, so Update is ready to go 15:28:07 <bglimm> ... Service Descriptions? 15:28:23 <bglimm> Greg: not ready yet due to pub rule checking issues 15:28:46 <bglimm> Sorry I dropped out, but not due to lack of credit 15:28:50 <bglimm> will dial in again 15:29:11 <AndyS1> scribenick: AndyS1 15:29:26 <AxelPolleres> greg: will turn to protocol once SD is ready 15:29:49 <AndyS1> end document state review 15:30:17 <AndyS1> for the review period of 4 weeks, exactly 4 weeks or one month? 15:30:27 <AxelPolleres> sandro? 15:30:58 <AndyS1> sandro: does not matter - prefer to end day before a WG TC 15:31:01 <bglimm> I am back 15:31:41 <AxelPolleres> let's choose a date 1 day before the coming WG meeting after 4 weeks have passed... 15:32:26 <bglimm> AxelPolleres: The next point on the agenda is to check on the status of the other documents 15:32:37 <AndyS1> axel: other docs - graphstore protocol 15:32:37 <bglimm> ... we didn't decide on the graph store protocoll yet 15:32:48 <bglimm> ... can anybody report? 15:34:03 <AxelPolleres> plan to publish soon, sandro reports to mainly have agreed on the crucial points with Chime. 15:34:12 <bglimm> ?: I am not sure what the status is now 15:34:28 <AndyS1> My preference is to see text in doc (inc ptr to changed text to make it easier to find) 15:34:33 <bglimm> ... I talked to Chime, but I am not sure what his schedule is 15:34:33 <AxelPolleres> ...right after publication, let's focus on it in next week's telecon and try to resolve wording issues by then per email 15:35:02 <bglimm> AxelPolleres: Let's discuss by email, so we can decide about the doc next week 15:35:15 <bglimm> ... We got some feedback for protocol 15:35:23 <bglimm> ... I am not sure how to treat this 15:35:24 <AxelPolleres> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-dawg/2012JanMar/0003.html ... an early last call comment? 15:35:29 <bglimm> ... as an early LC comment? 15:35:39 <bglimm> Sandro?: I guess that makes sense 15:36:29 <bglimm> AxelPolleres: Is there anything that says we address need another last call if we make changes 15:36:42 <AxelPolleres> Lee: only critical thing could be conformance criteria 15:37:14 <bglimm> LeeF: The doc says that if you implement query then you need to do it in one of the 3 specified ways 15:37:41 <bglimm> ... it is not clear whether you have to implement all 3 15:38:10 <bglimm> .... it is not too clear whether you are performant if you support one of those or whether you have to support all 3 15:38:25 <AndyS1> Any reason not to require GET ? 15:38:46 <bglimm> AxelPolleres: If a clarification requires another call, shouldn't we wait another week to get clarity about this? 15:39:03 <kasei> I'd be happy supporting a requirement for all of the 3 styles. 15:39:04 <bglimm> Sandro: We could add an at risk note 15:39:35 <bglimm> LeeF: Can we check on IRC whether we have consensus about this? 15:40:27 <kasei> q+ 15:40:41 <bglimm> ... if we follow Gregs proposal to require all three, it is a higher burden on implementors 15:41:03 <bglimm> AndyS: If we require all three, we should say why 15:41:07 <LeeF> ack kasei 15:41:28 <bglimm> kasei: If we only require GET and give the option to also implement the others 15:41:37 <bglimm> ... and describe this in the SDs? 15:41:57 <bglimm> AndyS: But it is not just between a client and server 15:42:11 <bglimm> ... to see iwhether GET works you might just have to try and see whether it works 15:42:32 <bglimm> AxelPolleres: What worries me is that we don't have any text there yet 15:42:44 <bglimm> LeeF: But it is just one sentence in the Conformance section 15:43:19 <SteveH> I don't think we have a easy way to implement direct POST 15:43:37 <bglimm> .... The client doesn't have to implement all three, only the server 15:44:21 <bglimm> LeeF, could you scribe the proposed text? 15:44:25 <AxelPolleres> Server MUST implement all forms, client MUST� implement one form to be compliant 15:44:58 <AxelPolleres> s/compliant/conformant/ 15:44:58 <bglimm> LeeF: Is anybody really worried if we have MUST for all three forms for the sever? 15:45:31 <bglimm> Steve: The problem we have is that the HTTP server is custom code. We would have to add another one apart from GET and POST 15:45:36 <bglimm> ... not a real blocker 15:47:23 <AxelPolleres> discussion about motivation for direct POST 15:47:47 <bglimm> AxelPolleres: LeeF, will you draft a text and email that? 15:48:05 <bglimm> LeeF: Yes, I'll mail it and we can see whether there are objections to that 15:48:47 <bglimm> AxelPolleres: Putting that text at risk doesn't really help us 15:49:55 <AxelPolleres> PROPOSED: Lee to �draft conformance text on the mailinglist which we put into the publication of protocol, unless objections (adendum to resolution http://www.w3.org/2009/sparql/meeting/2011-12-20#resolution_6) 15:50:15 <bglimm> AxelPolleres: Would this address Thomas comment? 15:50:51 <bglimm> LeeF: There is a fair amount of work to be done, but should be ok 15:51:05 <bglimm> +1 to the proposal 15:51:32 <AxelPolleres> RESOLVED: Lee to draft conformance text on the mailinglist which we put into the publication of protocol, unless objections (adendum to resolution http://www.w3.org/2009/sparql/meeting/2011-12-20#resolution_6) 15:51:34 <bglimm> AxelPolleres: No objections? 15:52:02 <bglimm> AxelPollere: Lee, will you have any time to work on the publication? 15:52:09 <bglimm> LeeF: Not sure 15:52:28 <bglimm> AxelPolleres: I'll try to look at the documents tomorrow evening 15:52:52 <AxelPolleres> Axel: Lee, please take care of protocol, I will check all other docs tomorrow night. 15:53:07 <AxelPolleres> adjourned 15:53:07 <bglimm> adjourned 15:53:20 <AndyS1> AndyS1 has left #sparql 15:53:37 <AxelPolleres> rrsagent, make records public 15:53:38 <bglimm> RRSAgent, make logs world 15:53:56 <AxelPolleres> http://www.w3.org/2012/01/03-sparql-irc