IRC log of sparql on 2011-03-22

Timestamps are in UTC.

13:55:06 [RRSAgent]

RRSAgent has joined #sparql

13:55:06 [RRSAgent]

logging to http://www.w3.org/2011/03/22-sparql-irc

13:55:20 [Zakim]

Zakim has joined #sparql

13:55:34 [AxelPolleres]

Zakim, this will be sparql

13:55:34 [Zakim]

ok, AxelPolleres; I see SW_(SPARQL)10:00AM scheduled to start in 5 minutes

13:55:57 [AxelPolleres]

agenda: http://www.w3.org/2009/sparql/wiki/Agenda-2011-03-22

13:56:03 [AxelPolleres]

AxelPolleres has changed the topic to: agenda: http://www.w3.org/2009/sparql/wiki/Agenda-2011-03-22 (AxelPolleres)

13:56:08 [AxelPolleres]

chair: Axel Polleres

13:56:14 [AxelPolleres]

regrets: Chime

13:59:16 [Zakim]

SW_(SPARQL)10:00AM has now started

13:59:16 [Zakim]

+kasei

13:59:24 [Zakim]

+AxelPolleres

13:59:36 [SteveH_]

SteveH_ has joined #sparql

13:59:39 [Zakim]

+??P5

13:59:40 [Zakim]

-??P5

13:59:40 [Zakim]

+??P5

13:59:47 [MattPerry]

MattPerry has joined #sparql

13:59:51 [cbuilara]

zakim, ??P5 is me

13:59:51 [Zakim]

+cbuilara; got it

13:59:56 [Zakim]

+??P15

14:00:00 [Zakim]

+ +49.911.973.4.aaaa

14:00:04 [AndyS]

zakim, ??P15 is me

14:00:06 [Zakim]

+AndyS; got it

14:00:08 [NicoM]

zakim, +49 is me

14:00:10 [Zakim]

+NicoM; got it

14:00:18 [Zakim]

+ +33.4.92.38.aabb

14:00:34 [OlivierCorby]

zakim, aabb is me

14:00:34 [Zakim]

+OlivierCorby; got it

14:00:35 [Zakim]

+ +1.603.897.aacc

14:00:44 [Zakim]

+??P19

14:00:47 [MattPerry]

zakim, aacc is me

14:00:48 [Zakim]

+MattPerry; got it

14:01:02 [SteveH_]

Zakim, ??P19 is me

14:01:06 [Zakim]

+SteveH_; got it

14:02:11 [AxelPolleres]

Zakim, who is on the phone?

14:02:11 [Zakim]

On the phone I see kasei, AxelPolleres, cbuilara, AndyS, NicoM, OlivierCorby, MattPerry, SteveH_

14:02:36 [AndyS]

I'll scribe

14:02:43 [AndyS]

ScribeNick: AndyS

14:02:48 [AxelPolleres]

topic: Admin

14:02:50 [AndyS]

Scribe: Andy Seaborne

14:03:00 [AxelPolleres]

PROPOSED: Approve minutes at http://www.w3.org/2009/sparql/meeting/2011-03-15

14:03:16 [AndyS]

seconded

14:03:26 [AxelPolleres]

RESOLVED: Approve minutes at http://www.w3.org/2009/sparql/meeting/2011-03-15

14:03:55 [Zakim]

-SteveH_

14:04:15 [AxelPolleres]

next week back to normal?

14:04:23 [AndyS]

Next meeting : Europe on summer time. Meeting 15:00 UK.

14:04:26 [AxelPolleres]

Next regular meeting: 2011-03-29 @ 15:00 UK / 10:00 EST (scribe: Birte)

14:04:43 [Zakim]

+LeeF

14:04:57 [AndyS]

ScribeNick: LeeF

14:05:15 [AndyS]

Scribe: Lee Feigenbaum

14:05:17 [LeeF]

topic: Comments

14:05:20 [AxelPolleres]

topic: Comments

14:05:24 [Zakim]

+??P25

14:05:34 [AxelPolleres]

http://www.w3.org/2009/sparql/wiki/Comments

14:05:35 [SteveH]

Zakim, ??P25 is me

14:05:35 [Zakim]

+SteveH; got it

14:05:46 [AndyS]

I have some drafts ready-to-be-approved.

14:05:55 [LeeF]

AxelPolleres: unassigned comments

14:06:01 [LeeF]

...one old one from Jeremy Carrol

14:06:24 [pgearon]

pgearon has joined #sparql

14:06:30 [LeeF]

...new comment on federation extension

14:06:46 [AxelPolleres]

ACTION: Carlos to dradft an answer for comment WG-1

14:06:46 [trackbot]

Created ACTION-413 - Dradft an answer for comment WG-1 [on Carlos Buil Aranda - due 2011-03-29].

14:06:53 [Zakim]

+pgearon

14:07:07 [LeeF]

AxelPolleres: one comment by Kjetil is being superceded by other mails from Kjetil

14:07:25 [LeeF]

AxelPolleres: there are some draft responses on the mailing list, please send comments / +1s on those draft responses

14:07:28 [AndyS]

Andy's outstanding responses: JB-5 (zero responses so far), and SC-1 (has one yes from Axel)

14:07:48 [LeeF]

AxelPolleres: re: Gregg Reynolds's comment, Lee says that offlist communication indicates that Gregg does not expect a response from this WG

14:09:12 [LeeF]

AxelPolleres: should we reconsider the naming of the dataset protocol document again? alternative would be "graph store protocol"

14:09:23 [AxelPolleres]

http://www.w3.org/2009/sparql/wiki/CommentResponse:KK-12

14:09:47 [LeeF]

AndyS: where is the vote from last time so we can see where things stood?

14:10:03 [AndyS]

http://www.w3.org/2009/sparql/meeting/2011-01-25

14:10:13 [AxelPolleres]

some people replied that we might change the name to "SPARQL 1.1 Graph Store HTTP Protocol

14:10:47 [LeeF]

http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-dawg/2011JanMar/0088.html was the list of choices

14:11:34 [LeeF]

AndyS: RDF WG is likely to draw a distinction between the graph and the container for the graph

14:11:41 [LeeF]

AxelPolleres: I don't think we should adopt their terminology at this point

14:11:52 [LeeF]

AndyS: Right, don't know where the terminology will end up, but let's get the framework right

14:12:44 [LeeF]

LeeF: I'll email the WG list floating the possibility of renaming the dataset protocol yet again

14:12:57 [LeeF]

SteveH: users don't notice the distinction between mutable and non-mutable concepts

14:13:57 [Zakim]

+Sandro

14:14:10 [AxelPolleres]

topic: to last call

14:14:17 [AxelPolleres]

http://www.w3.org/2009/sparql/wiki/To_Last_Call

14:14:27 [LeeF]

AxelPolleres: query status?

14:14:54 [LeeF]

AndyS: I processed Birte and Axel's reviews that pertain to my sections; I'm up to date

14:15:05 [LeeF]

SteveH: One note in the document that I need to talk to Andy about.

14:15:41 [Zakim]

+ +34.92.38.aadd

14:15:41 [LeeF]

... one piece of algebra that is wrong per Birte and haven't yet been able to figure out what is right

14:16:44 [LeeF]

AxelPolleres: I also identified a few issues with the aggregate details

14:16:49 [LeeF]

SteveH: Haven't yet gotten to those comments

14:16:52 [ericP]

you folks don't [plan to] have a 1.1 test harness which does graph bnode isomorphism for the tester, do you?

14:16:55 [ericP]

(i ask 'cause RDB2RDF group contemplating such a harness 'cause their implementations don't require isomorphism equivalence other than for testing)

14:17:05 [LeeF]

ericP, no plans for that right now

14:17:08 [ericP]

tx

14:17:09 [LeeF]

AxelPolleres: Lee still has open review

14:17:15 [LeeF]

s/open/pending

14:17:24 [AndyS]

SPARQL 1.0 does?

14:17:50 [LeeF]

SteveH: Not likely to be completed this month.

14:18:15 [LeeF]

AndyS: there are still pending reviews from Lee and a bit from Axel

14:18:32 [LeeF]

AxelPolleres: mine is OK as is if I don't get to anything else

14:19:42 [LeeF]

LeeF: I'll punt on my review rather than hold back the schedule. My review is more likely to focus on editorial clarity and consistency then on the algebra details.

14:19:48 [AxelPolleres]

Steve: should be ready by April 8

14:19:52 [LeeF]

AndyS: Offer to help SteveH with algebra changes

14:20:06 [LeeF]

SteveH: Thanks, quite possibly helpful.

14:20:35 [LeeF]

SteveH: Could use help looking at Birte's suggested algebra changes for grouping, hard to figure out precise details

14:20:40 [LeeF]

(agreement to take conversation offline)

14:20:42 [AxelPolleres]

Zakim, who is on the phone?

14:20:42 [Zakim]

On the phone I see kasei, AxelPolleres, cbuilara, AndyS, NicoM, OlivierCorby, MattPerry, LeeF, SteveH, pgearon, Sandro, +34.92.38.aadd

14:20:46 [LeeF]

AxelPolleres: update status?

14:21:11 [SteveH]

AxelPolleres, yes, I've not read your review yet

14:21:14 [LeeF]

pgearon: will spend some time this week

14:21:31 [LeeF]

AxelPolleres: Alex says we'll have update on formal semantics

14:22:10 [LeeF]

AndyS: there are some yet-unaddressed comments from an earlier review from last August - we need to make sure those aren't lost

14:22:19 [LeeF]

pgearon: i can look through that list this afternoon

14:22:35 [AxelPolleres]

ACTION: paul to check (andy's) old comments on update

14:22:35 [trackbot]

Created ACTION-414 - Check (andy's) old comments on update [on Paul Gearon - due 2011-03-29].

14:22:55 [AxelPolleres]

ACTION: Axel to check back with Alex on update formal semantics

14:22:55 [trackbot]

Created ACTION-415 - Check back with Alex on update formal semantics [on Axel Polleres - due 2011-03-29].

14:23:39 [AxelPolleres]

moduylo formal semantics issue, should be ready for LC by first week of April

14:23:55 [LeeF]

AndyS: other review?

14:24:01 [LeeF]

kasei: Haven't had a chance to start it yet

14:24:19 [LeeF]

... ping me when I should start?

14:24:36 [AxelPolleres]

ACTION: axel to ping greg for review as soon as Update formal semantics is ready

14:24:37 [trackbot]

Created ACTION-416 - Ping greg for review as soon as Update formal semantics is ready [on Axel Polleres - due 2011-03-29].

14:24:48 [LeeF]

AxelPolleres: protocol?

14:25:21 [LeeF]

http://www.w3.org/2009/sparql/docs/protocol-1.1/Overview2.xml

14:26:25 [AxelPolleres]

LeeF: section 2.1 has some updates, would be good to have feedback

14:27:53 [AxelPolleres]

so, maybe if specifically the reviewers at least could have a look, comments welcome from everybody.

14:28:03 [LeeF]

AxelPolleres: service description?

14:28:19 [LeeF]

kasei: held up on editorial issues

14:28:24 [LeeF]

... 1 is based on protocol document

14:28:36 [LeeF]

... other is on empty graph issue, waiting on ACTION-406 for Lee to provide some text

14:28:40 [bglimm]

bglimm has joined #sparql

14:28:42 [LeeF]

... minor changes, nothing substantive

14:28:53 [LeeF]

AxelPolleres: on protocol document - schedule?

14:29:26 [AxelPolleres]

protocol schedule schedule not entirely clear

14:29:35 [Zakim]

+ +44.186.528.aaee

14:29:39 [AxelPolleres]

service description essentially ready for LC

14:29:48 [LeeF]

kasei: for protocol dependencies I just need stable links into the document

14:29:51 [bglimm]

Zakim, +44.186.528.aaee is me

14:29:51 [Zakim]

+bglimm; got it

14:29:56 [LeeF]

kasei: ready for LC very very soon then, I hope

14:30:03 [LeeF]

AxelPolleres: dataset protocol?

14:30:29 [LeeF]

AxelPolleres: there are some comments pending

14:31:44 [AxelPolleres]

I made some attempt to summarise our position in the draft response to KK-12 ...

14:31:45 [AndyS]

I think bullet one is done.

14:32:04 [AxelPolleres]

... maybe the name change is an issue.

14:32:25 [AndyS]

... and bullet 2 is a change in fundamentals (?)

14:32:30 [LeeF]

AxelPolleres: entailment, main problem is still waiting for a review

14:32:38 [LeeF]

bglimm: yes, and i might need to add something about property paths

14:32:45 [LeeF]

... because they are different from BGP matching

14:33:00 [LeeF]

... and entailment is not defined for paths that can't be reduced to normal BGPs

14:33:07 [LeeF]

AxelPolleres: can we add that to wiki page?

14:33:09 [LeeF]

bglimm: yes

14:34:35 [LeeF]

AxelPolleres: can we move ahead without other reviews?

14:34:39 [LeeF]

LeeF: no process requirement otherwise

14:34:46 [LeeF]

AxelPolleres: if we have no more internal reviews, I'd be OK to go ahead

14:34:51 [LeeF]

(silence, other than typing)

14:35:19 [AxelPolleres]

ACTION: Birte to add aa paragraph in entailment on property paths

14:35:19 [trackbot]

Created ACTION-417 - Add aa paragraph in entailment on property paths [on Birte Glimm - due 2011-03-29].

14:35:32 [AxelPolleres]

ACTION: Axel to review proprtey paths paragraph in Entailment

14:35:33 [trackbot]

Created ACTION-418 - Review proprtey paths paragraph in Entailment [on Axel Polleres - due 2011-03-29].

14:35:41 [LeeF]

AxelPolleres: federated query status?

14:35:58 [LeeF]

AxelPolleres: re: entailment, there is still pending discussion of d-entailment and canonicalization

14:36:06 [LeeF]

... let simmer for a week and see if we get more clarification

14:36:08 [LeeF]

... no traffic

14:36:21 [LeeF]

... we said if we don't get clarification then we might just drop it

14:36:32 [LeeF]

bglimm: not sure we accomplish anything by waiting another week

14:37:03 [LeeF]

bglimm: either remove it or strengthen it to define a minimum set of datatypes that need to be supported

14:37:09 [LeeF]

AxelPolleres: straw poll!

14:37:25 [LeeF]

bglimm: could be an option to leave as is, but seems to be agreement that it's not useful in its current form

14:37:43 [AxelPolleres]

Strawpoll: +1 change D-entailment towards canonicalization -1 drop D-entailment

14:37:51 [SteveH]

0

14:37:52 [AndyS]

+1 canonicalize

14:37:56 [cbuilara]

0

14:37:56 [MattPerry]

+1

14:37:56 [bglimm]

0

14:37:57 [kasei]

0.5

14:37:57 [pgearon]

+1

14:37:58 [NicoM]

0

14:37:58 [LeeF]

-1 (haven't heard of any systems that actually do SPARQL + D-entailment)

14:38:08 [AxelPolleres]

0

14:38:45 [LeeF]

bglimm: I would need help defining what data types must be supported

14:38:47 [AxelPolleres]

Zakim, who is on the phone?

14:38:47 [Zakim]

On the phone I see kasei, AxelPolleres, cbuilara, AndyS, NicoM, OlivierCorby, MattPerry, LeeF, SteveH, pgearon, Sandro, +34.92.38.aadd, bglimm

14:39:02 [LeeF]

q+ to ask about canonicalization

14:39:07 [LeeF]

AxelPolleres: Matt, could you help?

14:39:10 [LeeF]

MattPerry: sure

14:40:27 [LeeF]

LeeF: I don't think canonicalization (of data being input to a store) is at issue here. This is about stores that do NOT canonicalize data on the way in but enforce D-entailment rules at query time, and we don't know of any systems that do that

14:41:04 [AndyS]

+1 - suggest it is on input; and for datatypes, suggest coverage - not MUST

14:41:40 [AxelPolleres]

if you do and don't do canonicalization, you get different answers... that's an entailment regime, and it's done by systems

14:43:36 [LeeF]

LeeF: I don't understand how canonicalization of data input has anything to do with entailment at query time

14:43:44 [LeeF]

AndyS: the entailment regimes do specify legal graphs for input

14:43:59 [LeeF]

bglimm: I'd rather not put in the work if there's no benefit to it

14:44:16 [LeeF]

AxelPolleres: I read that Oracle does this

14:44:23 [AndyS]

RIOT can canonicalize on input

14:44:35 [LeeF]

MattPerry: is there things in D-entailment that would not be captured by doing canonicalization at input time?

14:44:39 [LeeF]

bglimm: you also need to do RDFS entailment

14:45:15 [LeeF]

MattPerry: I can send out a list of the canonicalization that we do.

14:45:36 [AxelPolleres]

ACTION: Matthew to sync with Birte on Datatypes for canonicalisation

14:45:36 [trackbot]

Created ACTION-419 - Sync with Birte on Datatypes for canonicalisation [on Matthew Perry - due 2011-03-29].

14:45:52 [LeeF]

AxelPolleres: federated query status?

14:45:58 [bglimm]

Zakim, mute me

14:45:58 [Zakim]

bglimm should now be muted

14:46:05 [LeeF]

cbuilara: applied the comments from Axel and Lee

14:46:07 [AxelPolleres]

topic: Fed Query

14:46:10 [LeeF]

... sent email

14:46:19 [LeeF]

... wiki page with the comments of how I handled these comments

14:46:24 [LeeF]

... waiting for answers

14:46:32 [LeeF]

... need to clarify some things

14:46:39 [LeeF]

... from Axel and Lee

14:47:03 [LeeF]

AxelPolleres: link to wiki page?

14:47:31 [AxelPolleres]

Carlos, add missing issues to Last call page on wiki, please

14:47:34 [AndyS]

I'd take the grammar extract out - it's probably out of date. Link to ServiceGraphPattern

14:48:33 [AxelPolleres]

ACTION: Carlos to look into removing grammar extracts from Fed query and direclty link to current grammar

14:48:33 [trackbot]

Created ACTION-420 - Look into removing grammar extracts from Fed query and direclty link to current grammar [on Carlos Buil Aranda - due 2011-03-29].

14:48:34 [Zakim]

-pgearon

14:48:48 [cbuilara]

fed Query review: http://www.w3.org/2009/sparql/wiki/To_Last_Call/Federated_Query_Review

14:49:02 [LeeF]

AxelPolleres: JSON results format?

14:49:09 [LeeF]

AndyS: no changes yet, concentrating on query

14:49:15 [LeeF]

... JSON can go on a different schedule if need be

14:49:34 [Zakim]

+??P13

14:49:39 [bglimm]

Zakim, unmute me

14:49:39 [Zakim]

bglimm should no longer be muted

14:49:46 [NickH]

Zakim, ??P13 is me

14:49:49 [Zakim]

+NickH; got it

14:50:37 [AxelPolleres]

Birte: entailment... ready by end of first week of april

14:50:37 [LeeF]

cbuilara: if comments this week, need 1-2 weeks at most to apply final comments

14:50:46 [bglimm]

Zakim, mute me

14:50:46 [Zakim]

bglimm should now be muted

14:51:10 [AxelPolleres]

Carlos: reaslistic 1st or 2nd week of april (assuming open questions are addressed by Lee and Axel)

14:51:23 [LeeF]

AxelPolleres: overview document?

14:51:27 [LeeF]

... Lee and Axel to discuss offline

14:52:24 [LeeF]

topic: test cases

14:52:33 [LeeF]

AxelPolleres: looking for volunteers to look through test cases and figure out what is ready for approval

14:52:44 [LeeF]

... look through minutes, mailing list, etc.

14:52:55 [MattPerry]

Property Path tests are ready as far as I'm concerned

14:53:01 [AndyS]

I've added some bad syntax tests recently.

14:53:21 [AxelPolleres]

Zakim, pick a victim

14:53:21 [Zakim]

Not knowing who is chairing or who scribed recently, I propose MattPerry

14:53:24 [LeeF]

LeeF: suggest agenda items for next week: property path tests and bad syntax tests

14:53:33 [OlivierCorby]

I can contribute to test cases

14:54:17 [Zakim]

+ +1.540.412.aaff

14:54:28 [AxelPolleres]

ACTION: Olivier to look through test cases and provide a summary by next TC

14:54:28 [trackbot]

Created ACTION-421 - Look through test cases and provide a summary by next TC [on Olivier Corby - due 2011-03-29].

14:54:40 [pgearon]

Zakim, aaff is me

14:54:40 [Zakim]

+pgearon; got it

14:56:19 [LeeF]

topic: action review

14:56:28 [LeeF]

AxelPolleres: (reviews pending actions)

14:56:55 [kasei]

407 is done

14:57:11 [AxelPolleres]

close ACTION-407

14:57:11 [trackbot]

ACTION-407 Change conformance section in SD to refer to including "at least" one triple... closed

14:57:27 [LeeF]

yes

14:57:52 [AndyS]

408 is done (currently pending) will close. review of 407.

14:58:52 [MattPerry]

yes

14:59:05 [AxelPolleres]

close ACTION-394

14:59:42 [AxelPolleres]

close ACTION-393

14:59:43 [trackbot]

ACTION-393 Review query closed

14:59:54 [AxelPolleres]

close ACTION-390

14:59:54 [trackbot]

ACTION-390 Update comments page closed

15:01:31 [MattPerry]

bye

15:01:34 [Zakim]

-SteveH

15:01:35 [Zakim]

-cbuilara

15:01:37 [Zakim]

-NickH

15:01:37 [LeeF]

Adjourned.

15:01:39 [Zakim]

-Sandro

15:01:43 [Zakim]

-bglimm

15:01:47 [Zakim]

- +34.92.38.aadd

15:01:49 [Zakim]

-MattPerry

15:01:51 [Zakim]

-pgearon

15:01:53 [Zakim]

-AndyS

15:01:58 [AxelPolleres]

ACTIONS upto 397 will be reviewed next time.

15:01:59 [Zakim]

-kasei

15:02:04 [AxelPolleres]

adjourn

15:02:05 [LeeF]

RRSAgent, make logs world

15:02:24 [AxelPolleres]

Zakim, who is on the phone?

15:02:24 [Zakim]

On the phone I see AxelPolleres, NicoM, OlivierCorby, LeeF

15:06:02 [sandro]

Zakim, who is here?

15:06:02 [Zakim]

On the phone I see AxelPolleres, NicoM, OlivierCorby, LeeF

15:06:03 [Zakim]

On IRC I see bglimm, pgearon, SteveH, Zakim, RRSAgent, cbuilara, OlivierCorby, AndyS, LeeF, AxelPolleres, karl, ericP, NickH, kasei, trackbot, sandro

15:06:30 [sandro]

kasei, we decided against jsonp, didn't we? I now think that was a mistake.....

15:06:41 [kasei]

oh?

15:06:54 [kasei]

still time to change... :)

15:07:27 [AndyS]

Sandro - could you send an email to the list about it.

15:09:22 [sandro]

well, I've started doing some coding where I need jsonp, and it works great, and it occurs to me that it'll still be a while before practically-all browsers implement it, even if just because it takes years for people to upgrade their browsers.

15:09:27 [sandro]

Will do, AndyS

15:10:15 [AndyS]

The "years" argument seems quite important. Good that semweb now has such problems!

15:11:29 [Zakim]

-LeeF

15:11:30 [Zakim]

-AxelPolleres

15:27:42 [sandro]

AndyS, kasei, I take it back. I didn't realize that CORS had been out there quite so long already. I did the math, and 86% of current users are on a browser that supports CORS. The ones who don't are IE 6 or 7 (9%), Opera (2.5%), and other ancient versions (2%). I don't care too much about support for them, I guess.

15:29:57 [sandro]

(The opera case is truly bizarre. They don't support it, but the Editor of the CORS TR is Anne van Kesteren, and he works for Opera. I'm sure there's an interesting story here.)

15:30:29 [AndyS]

sandro - facts - good. And IE6 or 7 is unlikely to run the apps anyway (users not that sort?, behind firewalls banning them etc etc)

15:31:04 [sandro]

Right.

16:47:38 [AndyS]

AndyS has joined #sparql

17:46:47 [SteveH]

SteveH has joined #sparql

18:06:16 [AndyS]

AndyS has joined #sparql

18:19:29 [pgearon]

pgearon has joined #sparql

18:37:40 [pgearon]

pgearon has joined #sparql

20:35:37 [karl]

karl has joined #sparql

20:51:37 [LeeF]

is there a name for rdfs:Resource - rdfs:Literal? is that even a reasonable question?

21:03:56 [kasei]

i wish there was... i don't think (but am not sure) owl:Thing is what you want.

21:04:23 [kasei]

not a bit owl person, but think that can cover literals

21:05:06 [kasei]

i'm worried that it's not a reasonable question for the logics side of things, but that it's a very reasonable thing to want in practice.

21:05:37 [LeeF]

kasei, thanks, that's exactly where i'm at

21:05:45 [LeeF]

owl:thing == rdfs:Resource, so yeah, that's not what i want

21:05:52 [LeeF]

but i want some way to write down metadata about sparql functions

21:05:56 [LeeF]

such as the parameters they expect

21:06:06 [LeeF]

and want to be able to say that a function wants a <URI> type thingy

21:06:43 [LeeF]

In SPARQL 1.0 we just talk about IRIs, without giving them a URI

21:10:51 [kasei]

despite my (possibly wrong) impressions of owl:Thing, seems like you should be able to express this in owl as !rdfs:Literal

21:15:42 [SteveH]

SteveH has joined #sparql

21:15:49 [AndyS]

owl:Thing isa rdfs:Class but does not contain rdfs:Class. Can some be a literal and have a IRI?

21:16:44 [AndyS]

LeeF: "a function wants a <URI> type thingy" ==> That's really about the graph node type - not the thing being named.

21:48:56 [LeeF]

dang, missed AndyS

23:23:10 [bglimm]

bglimm has joined #sparql