16:58:10 <RRSAgent> RRSAgent has joined #rdb2rdf
16:58:10 <RRSAgent> logging to http://www.w3.org/2011/02/22-rdb2rdf-irc
16:58:45 <Ashok> zakim, this will be RDB2RDF
16:58:45 <Zakim> ok, Ashok; I see SW_RDB2RDF()12:00PM scheduled to start in 2 minutes
16:59:53 <Zakim> SW_RDB2RDF()12:00PM has now started
17:00:00 <Zakim> +dmcneil
17:00:24 <Zakim> +Alexandre
17:00:47 <Zakim> +boris
17:00:58 <Zakim> +Ashok_Malhotra
17:01:13 <Ashok> chair: Ashok
17:01:18 <Zakim> +Kingsley_Idehen
17:01:28 <MacTed> Zakim, Kingsley_Idehen is OpenLink_Software
17:01:28 <Zakim> +OpenLink_Software; got it
17:01:35 <MacTed> Zakim, OpenLink_Software is temporarily me
17:01:35 <Zakim> +MacTed; got it
17:02:13 <Souri> Souri has joined #rdb2rdf
17:02:20 <Zakim> +Souri
17:02:21 <betehess> Zakim, who is here?
17:02:21 <Zakim> On the phone I see dmcneil, Alexandre, boris, Ashok_Malhotra, MacTed, Souri
17:02:21 <Zakim> On IRC I see Souri, RRSAgent, Zakim, Ashok, dmcneil, boris, ivan, MacTed, betehess, cygri, iv_an_ru_, trackbot, ericP
17:02:47 <Zakim> + +1.862.012.aaaa
17:02:59 <soeren> soeren has joined #RDB2RDF
17:03:40 <juansequeda> juansequeda has joined #rdb2rdf
17:03:50 <Zakim> - +1.862.012.aaaa
17:03:55 <Ashok> present: Ashok, Alexandre, Boris, David, Ted. Soeren, Souri, 
17:04:04 <juansequeda_> juansequeda_ has joined #rdb2rdf
17:04:25 <Zakim> + +975911aabb
17:04:31 <Ashok> zakim, pick a victim
17:04:31 <Zakim> Not knowing who is chairing or who scribed recently, I propose Alexandre
17:04:42 <soeren> zakim, aabb is soeren
17:04:42 <Zakim> +soeren; got it
17:04:46 <betehess> ok
17:04:57 <Zakim> +juansequeda
17:05:05 <betehess> scribe: bertails
17:05:11 <betehess> scribenick: betehess
17:05:33 <betehess> TOPIC: approving minutes from last telcon
17:05:49 <betehess> PROPOSAL: approving the mminutes
17:06:06 <betehess> +1
17:06:18 <soeren> +1
17:06:23 <betehess> RESOLUTION: minutes are approved
17:06:43 <ericP> ivan and i will be there in a moment
17:06:58 <betehess> Ashok: juansequeda you requested to speak about @something@
17:07:07 <betehess> ... I'd like you to speak about the DM spec
17:07:33 <MacTed> q+ to discuss provenance
17:07:35 <betehess> ... then we can speak about '#' and '=' stuff
17:07:43 <Zakim> -soeren
17:07:59 <betehess> ... last time we spoke about publishing the spec
17:08:12 <Zakim> + +975112aacc
17:08:23 <betehess> ... the DM guys were a bit hesitant
17:08:25 <soeren> zakim, aacc is soeren
17:08:25 <Zakim> +soeren; got it
17:08:46 <betehess> ... as they prefer to publish when they think they are ready
17:08:59 <betehess> juansequeda: we said to publish in *two* weeks
17:09:08 <betehess> ... that was my issue
17:09:34 <betehess> Souri: I'll be on vacation in one month
17:09:52 <betehess> juansequeda: I'll leave for Chile on Friday
17:09:59 <betehess> ... we'll work with Marcelo
17:11:07 <betehess> q+ to ask when we publish
17:11:33 <betehess> juansequeda: I'd like to speak the many-to-many with richard
17:11:59 <betehess> ack next
17:12:00 <Zakim> MacTed, you wanted to discuss provenance
17:12:28 <betehess> MacTed: that may be dangerous thing
17:12:43 <betehess> ... I haven't had time to write that earlier
17:12:56 <betehess> ... wanted to speak about that several weeks ago
17:13:06 <betehess> ... about temporality issue
17:13:22 <ivan> zakim, dial ivan-voip
17:13:22 <Zakim> ok, ivan; the call is being made
17:13:23 <Zakim> +Ivan
17:13:33 <betehess> .... ericP was operating under the assumption that things are static forever
17:13:40 <betehess> ... and other people too
17:13:59 <betehess> ... so there has to be a provenance associated with everything
17:14:09 <betehess> ... "this stuff is right at that moment"
17:14:25 <betehess> Ashok: your recommendations?
17:14:36 <betehess> ... you want the mapping having a timestamp?
17:14:45 <betehess> MacTed: not necessaraly
17:14:45 <ericP> Zakim, please dial ericP-office
17:14:45 <Zakim> ok, ericP; the call is being made
17:14:47 <Zakim> +EricP
17:15:15 <betehess> ... if we use a named graph, it will be easier to describe this kind of things
17:15:34 <betehess> ... we have to shift the RDF world to recognition of time nature  of data
17:15:45 <Souri> q+
17:16:02 <betehess> Ashok: MacTed you have an action on @@
17:16:09 <betehess> MacTed: it's associated with that
17:16:17 <betehess> s/@@/blank node generation/
17:16:44 <betehess> ... blank node should be discouraged when possible
17:17:01 <Souri> ack Souri
17:17:07 <betehess> ... i'll do my best to address that next week
17:17:27 <Souri> q+
17:17:38 <betehess> ack Souri 
17:17:39 <ivan> ack Souri 
17:17:52 <betehess> Souri: you're speaking about versioning
17:18:00 <betehess> ... DM does not specify anything
17:18:27 <betehess> ... we look at the schema only when you processed the query
17:18:33 <ericP> +1
17:18:35 <betehess> ... so the DM should not reflect that
17:18:37 <Ashok> q?
17:18:38 <ericP> (to souri)
17:18:48 <betehess> MacTed: speaking about SPARQL-to-SQL?
17:18:51 <betehess> Souri: yes
17:19:01 <betehess> MacTed: it's not related
17:19:12 <betehess> ... speaking about RDB to RDF
17:19:15 <Ashok> regrets: Seema, Richard
17:19:22 <betehess> Souri: it's materialisation?
17:19:31 <ericP> q+ 
17:19:37 <betehess> MacTed: it's part of what I'm saying
17:19:48 <betehess> q+ later
17:20:08 <ericP> i don't see how whether instance data has bnodes or URIs in some places impacts the schema mapping
17:20:21 <ivan> ack betehess 
17:20:21 <Zakim> betehess, you wanted to ask when we publish
17:20:31 <Souri> q?
17:20:33 <ivan> ack ericP 
17:20:42 <betehess> ericP: if we're not doing materiazation
17:21:09 <betehess> ... I don't see in any how being BN or not impact a schema mapping
17:21:31 <betehess> Ashok: I agree that for me there are different things
17:21:36 <ericP> perhaps a write-up is in order
17:21:47 <betehess> MacTed: why would you use a BN?
17:22:01 <betehess> ... only because it's true at this instant 
17:22:54 <betehess> [MacTed arguing]
17:23:33 <ericP> "baseless"?
17:23:47 <betehess> MacTed: your postulate that your PK will refer forever this tuple is not true
17:24:09 <betehess> Ashok: hold on, there are quite different things
17:24:46 <betehess> ... we can keep arguing about that but how is that tied up with the temporal thing?
17:25:11 <betehess> ... the BN stuff happens just because we don't have a PK
17:25:43 <betehess> q+
17:25:59 <ivan> ack betehess 
17:26:33 <betehess> http://www.w3.org/2011/02/16-DM-denotational-rdf-semantics
17:26:49 <ericP> the logic remains consistent either way
17:26:58 <ericP> the question of bnodes is an engineering issue
17:27:00 <ivan> I can witness the validity of Alexandre's statement:-)
17:27:19 <MacTed> DESCRIBE <bnode>
17:27:20 <ivan> q+
17:27:21 <MacTed> danger.
17:27:33 <ericP> with bnodes or IRIs for subjects of tables with no primary key
17:27:39 <Ashok> q?
17:27:42 <juansequeda> +q 
17:27:45 <ivan> ack ivan
17:28:06 <betehess> ivan: if not BN, the current mapping can easily generate a URI
17:28:35 <betehess> ... if it's not BN, how would you generate a URI saying it's coming from uncertain knowledge
17:28:56 <betehess> MacTed: even something as "NULL" and a number
17:29:03 <ericP> germain test case: http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/rdb2rdf/wiki/R2RML_Test_Cases_v1#2duplicates0nulls
17:29:08 <betehess> ... means something now, not later
17:29:12 <ivan> http://example.org/{UUID}
17:29:18 <ericP> how do we address the two entries which are identical in the DB?
17:29:42 <betehess> Ashok: but the idea was to distinguish between nodes, right?
17:29:53 <betehess> ivan: using UUID, you have the unicity
17:29:58 <betehess> ... that's engineering
17:30:03 <Souri> As I explained in my earlier email http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdb2rdf-wg/2011Feb/0035.html, I think either bNode or (non-reusable) IRI would work fine.
17:30:13 <Ashok> q?
17:30:15 <betehess> ... it just that it won't be dereferencable
17:30:27 <betehess> ... some people will be unhappy about that
17:30:33 <ericP> q+ to ask how we would differentiate the two rows in http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/rdb2rdf/wiki/R2RML_Test_Cases_v1#2duplicates0nulls
17:30:45 <betehess> MacTed: if it's not dereferencable it's a BN
17:30:51 <betehess> ... and there's no point
17:31:15 <ivan> ack juansequeda 
17:31:22 <ivan> ack ericP 
17:31:22 <Zakim> ericP, you wanted to ask how we would differentiate the two rows in http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/rdb2rdf/wiki/R2RML_Test_Cases_v1#2duplicates0nulls
17:31:40 <betehess> ericP: I'd to address the test case I pasted
17:31:52 <betehess> ... re: identical rows in a table
17:32:06 <betehess> ... MacTed please address that, that will help a lot
17:32:34 <betehess> q+
17:32:42 <Souri> The email I had sent earlier was based on the assumption that we do not materialize (at least) the instance triples.
17:32:55 <betehess> MacTed: sample answer is: it's bad data and bad scheme
17:32:59 <Ashok> q?
17:33:24 <betehess> ericP: well, in earlier 80s databases implementation died because of not addressing that
17:33:47 <betehess> MacTed: this is something you cannot do well 
17:33:57 <betehess> ... there *is* a database id
17:35:19 <betehess> ericP: if we're doing sparql to sql, you don't have access to that knowledge
17:35:39 <betehess> ... it's everybody's objective
17:36:30 <ivan> +1 to betehess 
17:36:35 <Souri> +1 to ericP re: we are not standardizing SPARQL-to-SQL translation, but we are keeping that in mind
17:37:13 <ivan> q+
17:37:13 <Souri> and Ashok
17:37:18 <ivan> ack betehess 
17:37:33 <betehess> ivan: I understand Alex's remark
17:37:50 <betehess> ... but to be fair, I can still use BN in SPARQL
17:37:58 <betehess> ... we already do that
17:37:58 <cygri> cygri has joined #rdb2rdf
17:38:28 <betehess> ok, but in that case, MacTed will have to redefine graph equality through SPARQL + Blank Node :-)
17:39:09 <betehess> MacTed: if it has a name, it is not a BN
17:40:02 <betehess> Ashok: we have to create URIs to distinguish different rows
17:41:09 <betehess> Ashok: it would be useful if you could write something so we can speak about it next week
17:41:19 <betehess> MacTed: I'll do my best
17:41:44 <betehess> Ashok: anyway my understanding that this "provenance" is a different question
17:42:10 <betehess> ... next item was many-to-many
17:42:21 <betehess> .... byt juansequeda wanted to wait for richard
17:42:33 <betehess> juansequeda: can speak about it
17:42:41 <betehess> TOPIC: many to many
17:42:49 <betehess> [juan describes again]
17:43:18 <betehess> Ashok: should we recognize that as a special case?
17:43:29 <betehess> juansequeda: last time we decided to KISS
17:43:42 <betehess> ... I propsoed a switch but people were reluctant
17:44:07 <betehess> ... richard said that with d2rq, people were already asking about that 
17:44:12 <betehess> q+
17:44:15 <Souri> Is there an issue and/or action item on it?
17:44:16 <ivan> q-
17:44:30 <ericP> +1 to simple
17:44:54 <betehess> betehess: KISS
17:45:17 <betehess> Ashok: so we don't do anything special, right?
17:45:25 <betehess> ericP: basically yes
17:45:44 <juansequeda> KISS = Keep It Simple Stupid
17:46:25 <MacTed> q+
17:46:38 <betehess> ericP: if you detect many-to-many, indeed it works, but that's modeling
17:46:39 <betehess> q-
17:46:49 <betehess> Ashok: it can be wrong too
17:47:24 <betehess> ericP: stonebreaker@@ proposed an example where you got it wrong
17:47:37 <betehess> MacTed: just as ericP said, you can do wrong
17:47:46 <betehess> ... so it should not be part of the DM
17:47:51 <betehess> ... can be handle later
17:48:06 <betehess> Ashok: looks like we have a direction on this
17:48:26 <betehess> ... but we have to wait for richard
17:48:36 <betehess> ... let's see that next week with him
17:48:49 <betehess> juansequeda: and MacTed can propose something
17:49:47 <boris> betehess is trying to say sth
17:50:01 <betehess> TOPIC: # vs /
17:50:14 <Ashok> http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/rdb2rdf/track/issues/10
17:50:22 <juansequeda> ISSUE-10?
17:50:22 <trackbot> ISSUE-10 -- Hash vs Slash -- open
17:50:22 <trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/rdb2rdf/track/issues/10
17:50:41 <betehess> ericP: what is the right way to describe an identifier
17:51:05 <betehess> ... one implies a 303
17:51:20 <betehess> ... it's an issue for database folks
17:51:33 <betehess> ... cause they have big data
17:51:42 <Ashok> the option is to use a fragment identifier
17:51:43 <betehess> ... so if you go into an extra GET
17:51:55 <betehess> ... but the payload can be huge
17:52:04 <betehess> ... for no real value
17:52:15 <betehess> ... that's the argument for #
17:52:27 <betehess> ... the argument for / is that it's a better model
17:52:45 <betehess> ... it's easier for local names too
17:52:47 <ivan> q+
17:52:54 <betehess> ... will write the example down
17:53:30 <betehess> Ashok: the fragment id semantics is in the media-type
17:53:43 <juansequeda> What are the two possibilities? http://foo.example/DB/People/ID=7#_   vs   ??
17:54:09 <ivan> q-
17:54:22 <betehess> q- MacTed 
17:54:48 <betehess> ivan: if I have a # uri, I expect the whole before the # to come into the client
17:55:02 <betehess> ... I don't know what it means if this is coming from a database
17:55:03 <ericP> q+ to answer implicit cloud-size question
17:55:53 <betehess> ... the client is not require to send what is refered behind the #
17:56:30 <Ashok> to the server
17:56:46 <betehess> ivan: afaiu, everything has to be dereferencable, I don't know what it means in this case
17:57:13 <betehess> Ashok: if you're going this direction, you're requiring JS running on the client
17:57:16 <betehess> ... not ideal
17:57:21 <betehess> ivan: yeah
17:57:26 <ericP> juansequeda, i think http://foo.example/DB/People/ID=7#_ vs http://foo.example/DB/People/ID=7
17:57:29 <betehess> juansequeda: wanted to make clear
17:57:38 <betehess> ... ok, ericP answered :-)
17:57:49 <ericP> q+
17:58:09 <ericP> ack me
17:58:09 <Zakim> ericP, you wanted to answer implicit cloud-size question and to 
17:58:29 <betehess> juansequeda: if I do a prefix...
17:58:37 <betehess> ... with the #, I cannot do that
17:59:08 <betehess> ericP: if we paste an identifier, we don't want to get the whole database
17:59:23 <betehess> ... we don't to identify this or that
17:59:23 <Ashok> ... or whole table
17:59:38 <betehess> s/don't to/want to/
17:59:43 <juansequeda> PREFIX ex <http://foo.example/DB/People/>
17:59:46 <juansequeda> ex:ID=7 vs ex:ID=7#_
18:00:04 <betehess> ... you can use PREFIX to refer to sub parts
18:00:26 <betehess> juansequeda: I can't write this PREFIX with # :'(
18:00:34 <MacTed>  http://foo.example/DB/People/7#_  vs   http://foo.example/DB/People/7
18:00:47 <MacTed> can't have equals, so don't spec it to *have* equals
18:02:01 <betehess> Ashok: someone has to tackle it
18:02:14 <ivan> zakim, drop me
18:02:14 <Zakim> Ivan is being disconnected
18:02:15 <Zakim> -Ivan
18:02:25 <boris> we have to document all of this discussions
18:02:29 <boris> these
18:02:42 <Souri> I am at risk for next week's meeting
18:02:46 <ericP> local names for rdf/xml: http://www.w3.org/TR/2009/REC-xml-names-20091208/#NT-NCName
18:03:50 <ericP> local names for SPARQL: http://www.w3.org/TR/2008/REC-rdf-sparql-query-20080115/#rPN_LOCAL
18:03:55 <ericP> +1
18:04:08 <MacTed> thanks, ericP - that'll be helpful
18:04:31 <betehess> Ashok: let's just Alexandre work on the document
18:04:36 <Zakim> -soeren
18:04:37 <Zakim> -Souri
18:04:39 <Zakim> -juansequeda
18:04:39 <betehess> ... we'll speak formally about that later
18:04:41 <Zakim> -EricP
18:04:41 <Zakim> -boris
18:04:41 <Zakim> -Ashok_Malhotra
18:04:44 <Zakim> -MacTed
18:04:45 <betehess> adjourned
18:04:52 <betehess> RRSAgent, draft minutes
18:04:52 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2011/02/22-rdb2rdf-minutes.html betehess
18:04:53 <Zakim> -dmcneil
18:05:07 <betehess> Ashok, do you take care of sending the minutes?
18:05:10 <Ashok> Thank you for scribing, Alexandre!
18:05:12 <Zakim> -Alexandre
18:05:13 <Zakim> SW_RDB2RDF()12:00PM has ended
18:05:16 <Zakim> Attendees were dmcneil, Alexandre, boris, Ashok_Malhotra, MacTed, Souri, +1.862.012.aaaa, +975911aabb, soeren, juansequeda, +975112aacc, Ivan, EricP
18:05:20 <Ashok> Yes, I will send the minutes
18:05:25 <betehess> ok thanks!
18:05:36 <betehess> so my job is done for the day ;-)
18:05:43 <Ashok> Yes, thanks!
18:06:14 <Ashok> rtrsagent, make logs public
18:06:32 <Ashok> rrsagent, make logs public
19:34:19 <betehess> betehess has joined #RDB2RDF
20:22:41 <Zakim> Zakim has left #rdb2rdf
21:27:49 <juansequeda> juansequeda has joined #rdb2rdf