SPARQL Working Group Teleconference -- 14 Dec 2010

<AxelPolleres> trackbot, start meeting

<trackbot> Date: 14 December 2010

<AxelPolleres> 41# on the phone should work for hands up

<AxelPolleres> ack 41#

I think that is me, but the phone is just ringing

<Zakim> 41#, you wanted to comment on the phone should work for

<AxelPolleres> scribe: Birte Glimm

<AxelPolleres> PROPOSED: Approve minutes at http://www.w3.org/2009/sparql/meeting/2010-12-07

admin

AxelPolleres: Any comments?

<NickH> missing the word Agenda

<chimezie> "Sorry, Not Found"

Chimezie: I don't get any minutes there.

AxelPolleres: I'll check and we approve them next time

<AxelPolleres> ACTION: axel to check minutes from last time [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2010/12/14-sparql-minutes.html#action01]

<trackbot> Created ACTION-342 - Check minutes from last time [on Axel Polleres - due 2010-12-21].

Comments

<sandro> (the IRC log isnt even on the wiki where it should be at http://www.w3.org/2009/sparql/wiki/Chatlog_2010-12-07 )

AxelPolleres: Please try to get comments approved and send
... next meeting in a week
... Olivier is next on the scribe list

Olivier: I am not sure I can attend next week

report from protocol TC

Report from the protocol teleconf

<AxelPolleres> summary is http://www.w3.org/2009/sparql/wiki/Protocol plus the minutes at http://www.w3.org/2010/12/08-sparql-minutes.html

Greg: We talked about 5 issues
... first content format for update request
... a) string with key-value pairs or b) a raw format with appropriate media type

<AxelPolleres> alex, can u scribe next week?

Greg: ability to pass extra arguments like the default dataset
... and how that can be done

<AlexPassant> AxelPolleres: no I have to send regrets for next week sorry

Greg: we'll add a note to the doc to ask for feedback
... related to issue 60 is what is in the response to an update
... we probably didn't get there, but we discussed response and error code
... 200 code for success? Could be problematic if systems want to redirect (e.g., from POST to GET)
... we decided not to describe something here, should fall out from HTTP good practises

AndyS: My understanding is we would follow HTTP in what that says, so most is predefined
... we could mention the common practise

Greg: That's also my understanding

<AxelPolleres> HTTP doesn't leave much freedom on return codes... will tell us what to do.

Greg: forth issue is faults and error messages
... there was consensus that we want to express error messages in plain text, more structures errors can be dealt with in a next WG

<AxelPolleres> plain text errors and leaving more structured error descriptions to a future group.

Greg: final issues: patch, issue 56

<AxelPolleres> HTTP PATCH ?

Greg: looking into patch for update issues.

<sandro> !!!

Greg: patch says that the resource should not me modified, otherwise POST should be used
... we agreed to not pursue PATCH since it does not seem to be a good fit for our situation

<sandro> (I don't care about PATCH, but yes, of course "the resource" is the graph store.)

AxelPolleres: We probably need a concrete proposal to close issue 56

Sandro: Who wanted to use PATCH? I don't think we can close the issue now.

Greg: I think Paul suggested it initially.

<pgearon> that's correct. I was interested, but it seemed like I'm the only one, so the outcome was not to use it

<pgearon> I did not suggest it initially

AxelPolleres: I think Sandro and Greg agree that the issues is closable.

<sandro> sandro: Okay, if GET on the endpoint gives you the service description, then yes, using PATCH on the endpoint shouldn't be used to update the quad store.

<AxelPolleres> ISSUE-56 can be closed from Protocol's point of view, but still open for http-rdf-update ?

chime: I can close issue 56 and open a new one for http-update

AndyS: In what way is it still open?

<Zakim> AndyS, you wanted to ask in what way it is still open for the REST-protocol

AxelPolleres: Is patch allowed for http-update?

Chime: It is not always clear what is to be modified, but if it is clear, it can be used
... I suggested some text in an email to get more feedback, but other than that I think it can be closed

<chimezie> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-dawg/2010OctDec/0352.html

AxelPolleres: Can people please have a look at that email.
... I suggest we proceed by email and see whether we can close it next week

Chime: ok

<AxelPolleres> ACTION: Axel to put closing of ISSUE-56 on next week's agenda, asking for more discussion on the proposal in http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-dawg/2010OctDec/0352.html on email. [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2010/12/14-sparql-minutes.html#action02]

<trackbot> Created ACTION-343 - Put closing of ISSUE-56 on next week's agenda, asking for more discussion on the proposal in http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-dawg/2010OctDec/0352.html on email. [on Axel Polleres - due 2010-12-21].

AxelPolleres: Anything more from the protocol teleconf?

Greg: No, that's all

AxelPolleres: Anything on the schedule?

Greg: No, not discussed

AxelPolleres: Lee and I have to look into that then

<AxelPolleres> ACTION: Axel to talk with Lee about protocol schedule [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2010/12/14-sparql-minutes.html#action03]

<trackbot> Created ACTION-344 - Talk with Lee about protocol schedule [on Axel Polleres - due 2010-12-21].

rif:usedWithProfile

RIF-usedWithProfile

<AxelPolleres> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-dawg/2010OctDec/0430.html

AxelPolleres: The email summarizes the status
... I went back to the RIF WG, to discuss how we can refer to RIF docs from within RDF docs

The predicate would have a rule set as subject and ent. profile from RIF as object

<AxelPolleres> <r1> rif:usedWithProfile <http://www.w3.org/ns/entailment/Simple> .

scribe: <r1> imports rules that are to be used with the simple ent. profile
... we added a section to the ent. regimes doc

<AxelPolleres> http://www.w3.org/2009/sparql/docs/entailment/xmlspec.xml#id0x278d4530

scribe: happy about comments
... Sandro, we refer to the RIF-in-RDF encoding, can you check the example that we have?

Sandro: Yes, I'll check that

<AxelPolleres> ACTION: sandro to check example in http://www.w3.org/2009/sparql/docs/entailment/xmlspec.xml#id0x278d4530 [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2010/12/14-sparql-minutes.html#action04]

<trackbot> Created ACTION-345 - Check example in http://www.w3.org/2009/sparql/docs/entailment/xmlspec.xml#id0x278d4530 [on Sandro Hawke - due 2010-12-21].

AxelPolleres: Chime, can you have a look over the new part (7.1)
... I just replaced rif:import with rif:usedWithProfile

<AxelPolleres> ACTION: chime to look over "side effects" of the new section for RIF entailment regime [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2010/12/14-sparql-minutes.html#action05]

<trackbot> Created ACTION-346 - Look over "side effects" of the new section for RIF entailment regime [on Chimezie Ogbuji - due 2010-12-21].

AxelPolleres: Birte gave some comments already

bglimm: I am happy with the section

AxelPolleres: I suggest we move that to the end of the section
... it is quite long now
... if that's ok with everybody, I'll action myself
... to move it to the end of Sec. 7

<AxelPolleres> ACTION: Axel to move "referencing RIF" section to the end of section 7 in ER [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2010/12/14-sparql-minutes.html#action06]

<trackbot> Created ACTION-347 - Move "referencing RIF" section to the end of section 7 in ER [on Axel Polleres - due 2010-12-21].

AxelPolleres: We used in the ent. document the term Informative in others we use non-normative
... any preference

Sandro: Informative is unfortunate jargon
... OWL switched to non-normative

AxelPolleres: I suggest we switch to non-normative

<AndyS> SPARQL 1.0 used "informative"

AxelPolleres: Any objections to switch to non-normative

AndyS: I don't see why we should switch

<AxelPolleres> let's stick with "informative"

AxelPolleres: Ok, then we just stick with Inforamtive

s/Inforamtive/Informative/

Review of actions

acrtion review

<AxelPolleres> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-dawg/2010OctDec/0447.html

AxelPolleres: I tried to identify actions that are critical for LC

<AxelPolleres> ACTION-200: Steve to Work with Andy to add CONSTRUCT WHERE { triple pattern } shortcut to query spec

<trackbot> ACTION-200 Work with Andy to add CONSTRUCT WHERE { triple pattern } shortcut to query spec notes added

AxelPolleres: Action-200 CONSTRUCT WHERE
... can we have quick opinions?

AndyS: We should be careful not to get into conflicts for named graphs and quads

<AndyS> see also LALR(1) checking needed

Greg: I am against this. Even if it does not cause parsing problems, the optional where clause is problematic for humans

<AxelPolleres> strawpoll... Do you want CONSTRUCT WHERE as a shortcut?

<AndyS> no opinion

<kasei> i've seen discussion in the past of a "CONSTRUCT *" syntax that I think would at least mitigate the human confusion...

<chimezie> 0

<kasei> -1

<pgearon> 0

<AxelPolleres> 0

-0

<corby> 0

AxelPolleres: There seems to be no strong support from the WG, I'll get back to Steve to see whether he really think we need it or whether we can live without it

<AxelPolleres> ACTION: Axel to get back to Steve on ACTION-200 ... suggesting to pursue without that shortcut or refreshing my memories on it :-) [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2010/12/14-sparql-minutes.html#action07]

<trackbot> Created ACTION-348 - Get back to Steve on ACTION-200 ... suggesting to pursue without that shortcut or refreshing my memories on it :-) [on Axel Polleres - due 2010-12-21].

AxelPolleres: Action 209 Steve to Disallow projected variables being reused in HAVING in the spec

<AxelPolleres> done

<AxelPolleres> ACTION-285: Paul to Collect update security issues and report back to mailinglist regarding ISSUE-19

AxelPolleres: has this ever been on the mailing list?

Paul: Yes, but I didn't write a summary of the discussion

<AxelPolleres> before christmas...

<AxelPolleres> ACTION-286: Lee to Add a note on dropping of SOAP binding to next WD of protocol11 and explicitly solicit feedback on usage of SOAP in SPARQL

<trackbot> ACTION-286 Add a note on dropping of SOAP binding to next WD of protocol11 and explicitly solicit feedback on usage of SOAP in SPARQL notes added

AxelPolleres: There is an action for Lee to drop the SOAP protocol
... we had some discussion and we decided to hint explicitly that SOAP is no longer official supported/needed
... any opinions
... I think it is important to do this

<AxelPolleres> will talk avbout it with lee

<AxelPolleres> ACTION-290: Lee to Make sure that the relationship between SPARQL protocol and HTTP protocol is clearly laid out before Last Call

<trackbot> ACTION-290 Make sure that the relationship between SPARQL protocol and HTTP protocol is clearly laid out before Last Call notes added

<AxelPolleres> *critical for LC *

<AxelPolleres> ACTION-291: Work MIME type registration information into SPARQL Update document based on Sandro's suggestion for formatting etc.

AxelPolleres: That was on Paul

Paul: I didn't do that, maybe Alex did

Alex: I didn't do it

AxelPolleres: Can something happen before Christmas? Can I leave the action with Paul?

<AndyS> I'd like to add a registration for query as well. Completeness

<AxelPolleres> that one was for Paul... before Christmas? :-)

Paul: OK

<AxelPolleres> ACTION-292: Lee to Make sure text on transactionality/concurrency gets added to protocol document

<AxelPolleres> *Is this critical for LC? Was it discussed in the protocol call?*

AxelPolleres: I have to discuss this with Lee

<AxelPolleres> ACTION-306: Lee to Work with Axel to identify potential editor(s) to shepherd through JSON document on Rec track

<AndyS> query content-type gets .rq registered. Can C&P update, change, remove security issues.

AxelPolleres: we didn't find editors for the JSON format doc yet
... nobody volunteered and we didn't pursue it either
... anybody interested to do that?
... AndyS said he could help, but has many other things to do

AndyS: There is not too much to do, adding a schema section would be nice

<AxelPolleres> schema section would be nice, but not critical, mostly formatting only.

AndyS: Does anybody know of outstanding issues?

<kasei> My feelings are similar to AndyS: willing to help/edit, but less sure if there's lots of work outstanding.

AndyS: it is just a JSON version of the XML result format

Greg: I am pretty loaded, but if it is not too much work I can do it, but I can't tell how much work

AndyS: How about checking this week what is involved?

<AxelPolleres> ACTION: greg to send out question for ISSUES on json format, if no comments ship out as LC [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2010/12/14-sparql-minutes.html#action08]

<trackbot> Created ACTION-349 - Send out question for ISSUES on json format, if no comments ship out as LC [on Gregory Williams - due 2010-12-21].

<AxelPolleres> ACTION-324: carlos to Ping carlos/eric in 2-3 weeks for progress on Fed query issues

Carlos ???: Idea was to finish the work this week, I plan to have something for review next week

<AxelPolleres> carlos plans to send out request for review within the week.

scribe: Friday I'll ask for reviews and proceed with comments

AxelPolleres: ACTION 328 can be closed, Steve confirmed he completed it

<AxelPolleres> ACTION-328 can be closed according to steve

ACTION-331: Andy to Clarify the meaning of "potentially bound" vis a vis what

<trackbot> ACTION-331 Clarify the meaning of "potentially bound" vis a vis what can go on the right hand side of an AS in a SELECT list notes added

can go on the right hand side of an AS in a SELECT list

AndyS: I am working on it
... I've send a message to the list

AxelPolleres: Thanks for the update
... any updates for the schedule regarding LC?
... from now on I'll ask in teleconfs for a status

shcedule

AxelPolleres: Query?

AndyS: little progress, group has been adding lots of things, I am working through the details

<AxelPolleres> place-holders were added, people submitting content would be helpful

people could help by sending details and test cases

<AxelPolleres> ... test cases would be very helpful

AxelPolleres: Can anybody help with the function library section?
... It should be easy to do, but time consuming
... I can try and give you some input on this

<AxelPolleres> ACTION: Axel to draft some input for the function library section [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2010/12/14-sparql-minutes.html#action09]

<trackbot> Created ACTION-350 - Draft some input for the function library section [on Axel Polleres - due 2010-12-21].

AxelPolleres: next doc: update

Alex: I added the shortcuts and asked for feedback
... I have to go through the pending actions
... most of them have been taken into account

AxelPolleres: Lets see whether we can discuss the formal model in the next couple of days
... how far from LC?

<AxelPolleres> 2nd week of Jan seems realistic.

Alex: I think second week of Jan could be doable, mid January

AxelPolleres: Ent. Regimes

RIF: imports is now resolved
... next week we discuss Enrico's comments

Sandro: I have some issues that I'll try to make precise

AxelPolleres: next doc: Service Descriptions

Chime: No outstanding issues

AxelPolleres: HTTP-update?

<chimezie> http://www.w3.org/2009/sparql/wiki/HTTP-UPDATE-ISSUES

Chime: I tried to solve open issues on the wiki
... AndyS and Steve had some issues with relative URIs and I summarized them

AxelPolleres: We can go through that in one of the next tele conferences

<AxelPolleres> ACITON: Axel to put http://www.w3.org/2009/sparql/wiki/HTTP-UPDATE-ISSUES on one of the next agendas

<AxelPolleres> ACTION: Axel to put http://www.w3.org/2009/sparql/wiki/HTTP-UPDATE-ISSUES on one of the next agendas [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2010/12/14-sparql-minutes.html#action10]

<trackbot> Created ACTION-351 - Put http://www.w3.org/2009/sparql/wiki/HTTP-UPDATE-ISSUES on one of the next agendas [on Axel Polleres - due 2010-12-21].

AxelPolleres: Fed. Queries we'll get an update from Carlos shortly
... Overview is just one afternoon's work and not that critical

<MattPerry> bye

adjourned

<AxelPolleres> adjourned

Sandro, are you still there?

I get an error when I try to copy the chat log

- DRAFT -

SPARQL Working Group Teleconference

14 Dec 2010

Attendees

Contents